Ex Parte Loos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2018

13700332 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/700,332 01/28/2013
40878 7590 12/26/2018
EGL/Continental Teves Inc.
C/0 BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
524 South Main Street
Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MircoLoos
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.
14423-66 9449
(Pl 2462-US-PCT)
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, XUAN LANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIRCO LOOS
Appeal2018-002293
Application 13/700,332
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Mirco Loos ("Appellant") 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, and 42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Lloyd. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appellant cancelled claim 2 in an amendment entered after the final office
action was mailed. See Appeal Br. 2 (noting entry of amendment via
telephone), 14 (Claims App.).
3 U.S. Patent No. 6,019,441, issued February 1, 2000 ("Lloyd").
Appeal2018-002293
Application 13/700,332
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "a method for controlling the
pressure in a hydraulic system, in particular in an electronically regulated
brake system for a motor vehicle." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is the only
independent claim and is reproduced below.
1. A method for controlling the pressure in an electronically
hydraulic regulated brake system for a motor vehicle, the
method comprising the steps of:
controlling or regulating the pressure or the pressure profile
in the brake system by means of providing at least one
analogized solenoid valve, the at least one analogized solenoid
valve having at least a fully open state, a partially open state,
and a fully closed state,
controlling or regulating the solenoid valve such that the
valve moves into a partially open state,
calculating a first target current value and a second target
current value,
modulating the coil current of the solenoid valve by
alternation between the first target current value and the second
target current value,
holding the solenoid valve in a fully closed state by means
of a coil current corresponding to the first target current value,
calculating and providing a third target current value for the
coil current wherein the third target current value lies between
the first and second target current values,
during energization phases of the solenoid valve which is
provided for energization with the second target current value,
modulating the coil current by alternation between the second
target current value and the third target current value with the
amplitude predefined by the third target current value and at a
predefined frequency, wherein the solenoid valve is partially
open during the alternation between the second target current
value and the third target current value, and
2
Appeal2018-002293
Application 13/700,332
setting the third target current value as a function of the
demanded volume flow rate through the solenoid valve.
Appeal Br. 13-14 (Claims App.).
ANALYSIS
This appeal turns on the Examiner's finding that Lloyd discloses
"calculating and providing a third target current value for the coil current"
and limitations related to the third target current value in claim 1. See Final
Act. 2--4; Appeal Br. 7-12. The Examiner found that Lloyd's Figure 4C
supports the finding that Lloyd discloses the claimed "[f]irst current value,"
"[s]econd current value," and "[t]hird current value." Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner also relied on the Figure as supporting the finding that Lloyd
discloses "modulating the coil current by alternation between the second
target current value and the third target current value" and "setting the third
target current value as a function of the demanded volume flow rate through
the solenoid valve." Id. The Examiner further found that Figure 4C
discloses the solenoid current and shows the three targeted current values in
the same manner as Appellant's Figure 1.
Lloyd's Figure 4C, annotated by the Examiner, and Appellant's
Figure 1 from the specification, annotated by Appellant, are reproduced
below.
3
Appeal2018-002293
Application 13/700,332
First current
value
to
FIG. 4C
~t Current Val~ j
1
o.r.rt \
'
Second current
value
Third current
value
'Closing currri
\1
Third Current
'aiue
"""S&-c-.o-n-d ..... C-urr_e_n_t ----~ •.• .J
Va.loo
Tp
Fig .. 1
4
A
TIME
Time
Appeal2018-002293
Application 13/700,332
Ans. 5. According to Lloyd, Figure 4C shown above "depicts the solenoid
current ISOL." Lloyd, 5:30-31. According to Appellant's specification,
Figure 1 shown above depicts "a time-coil current diagram." Spec. ,r 23.
Annotations on each of the charts above label three points on the plotted
solenoid currents as corresponding to the claimed first current value, second
current value, and third current value. Ans. 5; Appeal Br. 8. Based on these
figures, the Examiner found that "for a system to control the current as
illustrated in figure 1 of Appellant, calculation and targeting would be
included in the controlling method." Ans. 6. The Examiner further found
that "[t]he same concept is true for Lloyd," "Lloyd shows clearly that the
three current values are illustrated in figure 4C," and "for a system to control
the current as illustrated in figure 4C of Lloyd, calculation and targeting
would be included in the controlling method, in the same manner as
Appellant's" system. Id.
Appellant argues that Lloyd's Figure 4B, not Figure 4C, shows
modulation of the coil current between values, and Figure 4B only depicts a
first and second current value rather than three current values as claimed.
Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, Figure 4C shows "the range of the
current through the coil" that "is incidental to the process" and "entirely
reliant on the modulations shown in Figure 4B." Id. at 7-8. Appellant
contends that because Figure 4C merely shows the result of the current
applied in Figure 4B via pulse width modulations, the current levels in
Figure 4C "are not targeted" and "cannot be precisely calculated as
claimed." Id. at 9. Based on this interpretation of Lloyd, Appellant
contends that the alleged third current value in Lloyd's Figure 4C
5
Appeal2018-002293
Application 13/700,332
corresponds to a desired average current based on the modulations, and
"cannot be precisely calculated" and "not predefined" as claimed. Id. at
9-10. For similar reasons, Appellant contends that Lloyd fails to disclose
setting the third target current value as a function of the demanded volume
flow rate through the valve. Id. at 11-12. Based on these arguments,
Appellant contends that Lloyd fails to disclose three limitations related to the
third current value: "(1) calculating and providing a third target current
value, (2) modulating between a second target current value and the third
target current value, or (3) setting the third target current value as a function
of the demanded volume flow rate through the solenoid valve." Reply Br. 1.
We are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, or
the finding that Lloyd discloses the third target current value and related
limitations. As an initial matter, Lloyd's Figure 4C discloses three distinct
current levels, and modulates between the second and the third current
values. Lloyd, Fig. 4C; Ans. 5. Appellant implicitly concedes this point,
but argues that Lloyd's current levels are not targeted or calculated as
claimed because "Lloyd's Figure 4c shows an actual current" that does not
reach a steady state. Reply Br. 1. Appellant incorrectly assumes that the
present claims require reaching a "steady state" or that target current values
must have "right angles and vertical jumps" when graphed. See id. The
claims are not so limited by merely requiring "calculating" a "target"
current, nor do they exclude targeting three current values that are the actual
current values observed in the solenoid. Appellant does not provide us with
a formal construction, supported by the specification, of any of the claim
terms that would exclude the actual current in solenoid as shown in Lloyd's
Figure 4C. Our own review of the claim language does not persuade us that
6
Appeal2018-002293
Application 13/700,332
we should adopt a construction that excludes measuring the "actual current"
in the solenoid. The specification does not appear to explain the
"calculating" or "target" terms in a way that would limit them in the narrow
manner asserted by Appellant. See Spec. ,r,r 31-32.4
Lloyd's disclosures adequately support the Examiner's findings under
the broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms. Lloyd describes the
current corresponding to the third target current as a "desired average current
[that] corresponds to a partially open valve position determined to provide a
desired flow rate for building the brake pressure." Lloyd, 5:45--49. Lloyd
describes the result of its method as enabling "the valves to operate in a
stable, partially open position that provides the desired fluid flow while
minimizing noise associated with acceleration and deceleration of the
controlled fluid." Id. at 1 :44--51. Achieving a "desired" current that
produces a "stable" flow rate necessarily requires calculating a
corresponding, target current in order to achieve these goals. See Final Act.
5; Ans. 6 (citing Lloyd, 1 :44--50, Fig. 4C). Reading Lloyd as merely
measuring actual current, without first setting a third target current in the
middle of the first and second current to achieve specific flow rates, is not a
reasonable interpretation of the reference as a whole. 5
4 Appellant does not direct us to any portion of the specification that defines
these terms, and instead cites to portions of the specification that are not
located in the specification before us on appeal. See Appeal Br. 3--4 ( citing
to paragraphs beyond paragraph 40, the last paragraph included in the
specification on file), 11 (same, citing to paragraphs 45 and 46).
5 We interpret the Examiner's findings on these issues as relying on
inherency, rather than express disclosures of the "calculating" step in Lloyd.
See Ans. 6 ("It is deemed that for a system to control the current as
illustrated in figure 1 of Appellant, calculation and targeting would be
7
Appeal2018-002293
Application 13/700,332
For similar reasons, we reject Appellant's related argument that Lloyd
does not disclose setting the third target current as a function of demanded
volume. Appellant appears to rely on the same arguments discussed above
as a premise for this argument. See Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4--5. In
addition, the Examiner's finding that Lloyd discloses the limitation relies on
express teachings of Lloyd that its system "enables the valves to operate in a
stable, partially open position that provides the desired fluid flow." Ans. 7
( quoting Lloyd, 1 :44--50) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted);
see also Lloyd, 5:47--48 ("[T]he desired average current corresponds to a
partially open valve position determined to provide a desired flow rate."
( emphasis added)). Appellant does not address the import of this finding,
and the related portion of Lloyd, in its Reply, and we are not apprised of
error in the Examiner's finding.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant
does not raise any additional arguments regarding dependent claims 3 and 4,
and we therefore sustain the rejection of those claims for the same reasons
discussed above.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, and 4.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
included in the controlling method.").
8