Ex Parte Joyce et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

14663933 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/663,933 03/20/2015
113140 7590 12/25/2018
Bejin Bieneman PLC
Ford Global Technologies, LLC
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John P. Joyce
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83508426(65080-1541) 9297
EXAMINER
MOTT, GENNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN P. JOYCE and SCOTT J. LAUFFER
Appeal2018-003272
Application 14/663,933
Technology Center 3600
Before JEREMY M. PLENZLER, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13, and 20-26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2018-003272
Application 14/663,933
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 8 are independent, with claims 2, 5-7, and 20-26
depending (directly or indirectly) from claim 1, and claims 9, 10, and 13
depending from claim 8. Claims 1 and 8 are reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
an autonomous sub-system that includes first and second
braking modules, each of the first and second braking modules
comprising a processor and a memory, each of the memories of
the first braking module and the second braking module storing
instructions executable by the processor of the first braking
module or second braking module, respectively, for detecting a
fault; and
a brake sub-system programmed to actuate a brake
mechanism in response to a signal from the second braking
module;
wherein the first braking module is communicatively
coupled to the brake sub-system via a first communications bus
and the second braking module is communicatively coupled to
the brake sub-system via a second communications bus, wherein
the first braking module and second braking module are
programmed to independently operate the brake sub-system, and
wherein the autonomous sub-system is further programmed to
select one of the braking modules to provide a signal to the brake
mechanism depending on whether a fault is detected.
8. A system comprising:
an autonomous sub-system that includes first and second
braking modules, each of the first and second braking modules
comprising a processor and a memory, each of the memories of
the first braking module and the second braking module storing
instructions executable by the processor of the first braking
module or the second braking module, respectively, for detecting
a fault;
2
Appeal2018-003272
Application 14/663,933
a parking sub-system programmed to actuate a parking
restraint mechanism in a vehicle powertrain in response to a
signal from the first braking module;
a brake sub-system programmed to actuate a brake
mechanism in response to a signal from the second braking
module; and
a first power source that powers the parking sub-system
and the vehicle powertrain, and a second power source that
powers the brake sub-system,
wherein the first braking module is communicatively
coupled to the brake sub-system via a first communications bus
and the second braking module is communicatively coupled to
the brake sub-system via a second communications bus, wherein
the first braking module and second braking module are
programmed to independently operate the brake sub-system, and
wherein the autonomous sub-system is further programmed for
one of the braking modules to provide a signal to actuate one of
the parking restraint mechanism and the brake mechanism
depending on whether a fault is detected.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 5-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as
anticipated by Forster (US 2015/0203082 Al, published July 23, 2015).
2. Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Forster and Wakabayashi (US 2008/0232015 Al,
published Sept. 25, 2008).
3. Claims 20-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Forster and Weiberle (US 6,256,570 Bl, issued July 3,
2001).
4. Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Forster, Weiberle, and Alvarez (US 2004/0140710 Al,
published July 22, 2004).
3
Appeal2018-003272
Application 14/663,933
OPINION
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 13, and 20---26
The Examiner finds that Forster discloses each limitation recited in
claims 1 and 8. Final Act. 3---6. Appellant disputes, for example, the
Examiner's findings regarding the "autonomous sub-system." Appeal Br.
10-11. This dispute is based on claim interpretation. The Examiner
determines that the "autonomous sub-system" does not require anything
beyond the "first and second braking modules" in claims 1 and 8. Ans. 5.
Appellant, however, contends that the "autonomous sub-system" requires
"[a] vehicle computer that processes data independently of the first braking
module and the second braking module." Appeal Br. 6-7 (emphasis added).
Claims 1 and 8 each recite "an autonomous sub-system that includes
first and second braking modules." That limitation, itself, does not require
anything beyond the "first and second braking modules" and the
functionality of those modules recited in the claims. Claims 1 and 8 each
later recite further limitations related to the "autonomous sub-system," but
the scope of claim 1 differs from that of claim 8. Claim 1 further recites that
"the autonomous sub-system is further programmed to select one of the
braking modules to provide a signal to the brake mechanism depending on
whether a fault is detected." Claim 8 further recites that "the autonomous
sub-system is further programmed for one of the braking modules to provide
a signal to actuate one of the parking restraint mechanism and the brake
mechanism depending on whether a fault is detected."
Appellant contends that the limitations from claim 1 noted above have
almost the same meaning as those from claim 8. See Appeal Br. 7 ("The
autonomous sub-system ( not the first braking module or the second braking
4
Appeal2018-003272
Application 14/663,933
module) selects either the first braking module or the second braking module
to provide a signal to actuate the brake mechanism ( claim 1) or to actuate
either the parking restraint mechanism or the brake mechanism ( claim 8). ").
We agree with Appellant with respect to claim 1, but not with respect to
claim 8.
As noted above, claim 1 requires that "the autonomous sub-system ...
select[ s] one of the braking modules." The plain language of the claim
indicates that the "autonomous sub-system" includes components separate
and distinct from the "first braking module" and the "second braking
module" because that sub-system selects one of those modules. This is
consistent with Appellant's Specification. See Spec. ,r 13 ("The braking
modules 106, 107, sometimes referred to as failsafe devices, are each a
combination of software and hardware capable of operating independently of
the sub-system 105 and one another.").
The corresponding limitation from claim 8, however, does not require
separate software and hardware for the "autonomous sub-system." That
limitation states that "the autonomous sub-system is further programmed for
one of the braking modules to provide a signal." Claim 8 does not require
the "autonomous sub-system" to select one of those additional modules.
The plain language of claim 8 requires only that the "autonomous sub-
system," which includes the "first braking module" and the "second barking
module," be programmed for one of those braking modules to provide the
signal. That is, claim 8 expressly recites that one of those braking modules
provides the signal and allows for one of those modules to have the recited
programming. This, too, is consistent with Appellant's Specification. See
Spec. ,r 10 ("[T]he autonomous sub-system 105 generally includes one or
5
Appeal2018-003272
Application 14/663,933
more modules such as braking modules 106, 107 that include a processor
and a memory, the memory including one or more forms of computer-
readable media, and storing instructions executable by the processor for
performing various operations.").
The Examiner presents no findings regarding an "autonomous sub-
system" separate and distinct from the additional "first braking module" and
"second braking module." See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3-5. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1, or claims 2, 5-7,
and 20-26, which depend from claim 1.
As for claim 8, Appellant's contentions are the same as those
presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11. Those contentions, however, are
based on claim 8 requiring software and hardware for the "autonomous sub-
system," which is separate and distinct from that of the "first braking
module" and the "second braking module." See id. at 10-11. As explained
above, we do not read claim 8 as being limited in the same manner as claim
1. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of
claim 8, or the rejections of claims 9 and 13, which Appellant does not argue
separately (see id. at 11 ).
Claim 10
Appellant provides separate argument for claim 10, which depends
from claim 8. Appeal Br. 12-13. Claim 10 adds that
each of the first and second braking modules is programmed to
receive an indication of the fault from the first communications
bus or the second communications bus, respectively, wherein at
least a portion of at least one of the first communications bus and
the second communications bus is external to the autonomous
sub-system.
6
Appeal2018-003272
Application 14/663,933
Appellant contends that "[t]he claim language and Appellant's Specification
clearly establish that the 'first communication bus' and the 'second
communication bus' are different." Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner, however,
finds that Forster's "communications bus 34 ... may be considered part of
the first and/or the second communications bus." Final Act. 7. Appellant
responds that "communication bus 34" is "a single structure" and "cannot be
both the 'first communication bus' and the 'second communication bus."'
Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner explains, in detail, why Forster's bus 34 teaches both
the "first communication bus" and the "second communication bus." Ans.
5-8. The Examiner provides annotated versions of Forster's Figure 2
illustrating the structure considered the first bus and the second bus (id. at 6-
7), and explains, for example, that "although the 'first communication bus'
and the 'second communication bus' share Bus 34 ( which is understood to
graphically represent a tangled network of interconnected hardware and
corresponding software), they are two distinct sets/families of connections
(busses) by virtue of the different and distinct end components that are
connected" (id. at 6). The Examiner notes the similarity to the structure
disclosed as the busses in Appellant's Specification, specifically noting
Figure 4. See id. at 7-9. Appellant's Figure 4 is reproduced below.
7
Appeal2018-003272
Application 14/663,933
P'(.l:lkig
su~; .. :;.v:;tt-:m
~
*<».» 1'CN" ,oc,~ ».x>< ,:,C,..:00
~
~
~
s
~~**~~
Dr~v~:'.'
:r.pett
11',
s
$
$
*·
$
$
:ii-