Ex Parte MatsushitaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 12, 201612006833 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/006,833 01/04/2008 21828 7590 07114/2016 CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES PC 43440 WEST TEN MILE ROAD EATON CENTER NOVI, MI 48375 Satoshi Matsushita 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. OCB-263-A 7157 EXAMINER KING, BRADLEY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/14/2016 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): cbalaw@gmail.com wblackman@ameritech.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) lJ}HTED STATES PATENT AND TRADE1\1ARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SATOSHI MATSUSHITA Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Satoshi Matsushita et al. (Appellant) 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision, dated June 23, 2011, ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-17, 19, and 20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Appeal Brief ("Br.") 3, dated February 20, 2012. 2 Appellant canceled claim 18 in an Amendment filed on February 1 7, 2012, after issuance of the Final Action that is the subject of this appeal. The Examiner entered the Amendment, as evidenced in an Advisory Action, Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 We AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's claimed subject matter relates to "a brake system comprising an electric braking force generator that brakes a wheel by using a driving force of an electric motor." Spec. para. 2. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A brake-by-wire brake system comprising: a hydraulic master cylinder; a first hydraulic pressure sensor in fluid communication with said master cylinder; an electric braking force generator that is operable to generate hydraulic pressure to brake a wheel by a driving force of an electric motor, the electric braking force generator comprising a slave cylinder having a piston; a second hydraulic pressure sensor in fluid communication with an outlet of the electric braking force generator; a normallv onen cutoff valve disnosed between the master ~ ~ ~ cylinder and the electric braking force generator; a brake caliper disposed proximate the wheel, the brake caliper operable to be driven either by operation of the electric braking force generator or by manual operation of the master cylinder, depending on the position of the cutoff valve, wherein the slave cylinder is disposed in series between the master cylinder and the caliper; and an electric motor controller that performs a field- weakening control of the electric motor. dated August 12, 2013. 2 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 EVIDENCE The Examiner relied upon the following evidence: Villec US 4,969,756 Bohm us 6,550,871 B 1 Kunimichi ("JP '366") JP 2005-343366 A REJECTIONS The Final Action contained the following rejections: Nov. 13, 1990 Apr. 22, 2003 Dec. 15, 2005 1. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over JP '366 and Bohm. 2. Claims 4, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over JP '366, Bohm, and Villec. ANALYSIS First Ground of Rejection Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 Appellant argues independent claims 1, 8, and 13 as a group. Br. 12- 22. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and claims 8 and 13 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant generally challenges the Examiner's proposed modification of the braking system disclosed in JP '366 with the teaching of Bohm on the basis that the systems disclosed in these references are "fundamentally different" from each other (Br. 22), and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider it obvious to combine their teachings in the manner claimed. Id. at 12-22. 3 For instance, Appellant contends that Bohm is 3 Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's findings as to the scope and content of JP '366 and Bohm. See, e.g., Br. 19 (Appellant arguing that JP '366 does not teach field-weakening control of the electric motor) and Final Act. 2 (Examiner making the same finding). 3 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 "exclusively directed to electro-mechanically operated brakes, rather than hydraulically operated brakes." Br. 15 (boldface omitted). Appellant further argues that "there is no teaching or suggestion in the B [ o ]hm disclosure that B[o]hm's slope of brake force corresponds to the brake fluid pressure of a hydraulically operated braking device, such as the brake system of the claimed invention." Id. at 16, 20, 22. Appellant also argues that the Examiner's proposed modification of the hydraulically actuated brake system of JP '366 with the teaching of Bohm, in which the brakes are electromechanically operated, would render the system of JP '366 "unsatisfactory for its intended use, because the JP '3 66 and B [ o ]hm systems are structurally and functionally different from each other" and that the proposed modification "would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in the [JP '366] reference." Br. 17. We are not persuaded by these arguments as they fail to take into account what the references would teach to one of ordinary skill in the art, and are based, instead, on a bodily incorporation of the teaching of Bohm into the system of JP '366. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). In particular, for the reasons that follow, Appellant has not persuaded us that the teachings of Bohm are limited only to electromechanically actuated braking systems, or that the Examiner erred in finding that one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the applicability of the technique of field-weakening motor control disclosed in Bohm to the hydraulically actuated brake system of JP '366. See id. at 417 ("if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar 4 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill"). Bohm discloses a technique "for controlling a brake for motor vehicles, which can be electromechanically actuated by means of an actuator consisting of an electric motor and a drive mechanism positioned downstream of the electric motor." Bohm, col. 1, 11. 8-12. As noted by the Examiner, similar to Bohm, the system of JP '366 has "an electric motor 25a to linearly drive an actuating element 43 which ultimately actuates the brake 17." Ans. 2-3 (noting that "[t]he only significant difference between the two systems is that JP '366 utilizes hydraulic fluid to transmit the braking force whereas the system of B[o]hm transmits the force directly"). Bohm discloses that one having ordinary skill in the art, when selecting an appropriate electric motor for driving a drive mechanism for actuating a braking system, takes into account various competing factors, including: available space for the motor, minimizing peak and continuous current input, rapid response to overcome free travel distance between friction lining and brake disc (meaning that the motor has to run at as high a speed as possible), required clamping force and release gradients, dosing the clamping force (meaning that the electric motor has to provide as great a torque as possible), maximum clamping force (meaning the motor has to provide high torque at low speeds), and good reversing performance (meaning the motor has to have a high motor torque). Bohm, col. 1, 11. 32- 58. Bohm acknowledges that "[t]hese contrary requirements cannot at all or not optimally be fulfilled in the available space for the electric motor with the above-mentioned control known in the prior art." Id. at col. 1, 11. 59-61. Bohm solves the problem of providing an electric motor capable of the 5 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 necessary high torque and high speeds without increasing the size of the motor by using field-weakening current to control the motor to allow for increasing the speed of the electric motor under certain operating conditions, i.e., depending on demand, without reducing the available torque. Id. at col. 1, 1. 64 - col. 2, 1. 2, Fig. 5. In particular, through the use of field- weakening current, "the slope of the speed-torque characteristic curve of the electric motor is changed in such a way the weaknesses of those components of the electromagnetic field that a high speed is reached at the same torque." Id. at col. 2, 11. 8-12, Figs. 5, 6a, 6b. This speed-torque characteristic curve relates to the characteristics of the electric motor itself, and thus we are not persuaded by Appellant that one would not have applied this technique to the braking system of JP '366 simply because Bohm does not describe this curve within the context of a hydraulically actuated braking system. The technique described in Bohm is applicable to any braking system that uses an electric motor to effect actuation of a caliper and in which a fast response time is necessary, due to the need in all such braking systems to balance competing factors, i.e., necessary torque requirements, necessary increased operating speed to achieve rapid response under certain conditions, and space constraints, when designing an electric motor for use in the braking system. As such, we agree with the Examiner that: actuation speed, current consumption and space constraints are all potential issues relevant to the brake system of JP '366 and therefore it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the field- weakening control of B[o]hm for the electric motor of JP '366 for the advantages specifically taught by B [ o ]hm. Ans. 3. 6 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 Bohm provides, as an example, that the field-weakening share of the current would be applied to overcome free travel. Id. at col. 5, 11. 8-12. The relationship between response time and free travel is present in all braking systems, regardless of how the braking mechanism is actuated. See, e.g., Spec., para. 54 (noting that a delay in response time "varies depending on the degree of rigidity of the caliper main body and the degree of wear of the brake pad"). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the field-weakening control technique of Bohm would allow for a faster response time in overcoming free travel in both electromechanically and hydraulically actuated braking systems that are driven by an electric motor, while maintaining the necessary high torque characteristics of the electric motor without an increase in motor size. Likewise, we agree with the Examiner's determination that the use of the field-weakening control technique of Bohm in the hydraulically actuated system of JP '366 would not render the system of JP '366 inoperable for its intended purpose and that the proposed modification would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 4. Appellant presents only conclusory arguments, focused on the purported fundamental differences between the hydraulically actuated JP '366 system and the electromechanically operated Bohm system. Br. 17. For the reasons identified by the Examiner, such arguments do not adequately explain how the proposed modification would render the system of JP '366 inoperable, nor has Appellant asserted that the modification would be beyond the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also Ans. 4. Appellant further argues that the Examiner's rejection should not be sustained because "B[o]hm does not perform field-weakening control of the 7 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 electric motor in accordance with load characteristics." Br. 19. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of representative claim 1, which recites "an electric motor controller that performs a field- weakening control of the electric motor." Id. at 29 (Claims App.). While this claim language appears in independent claim 13, Appellant chose to argue claims 1, 8, and 13 as a group by placing the arguments under a single subheading. Id. at 18 (subheading entitled "Independent Claims 1, 8, and 13"). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("Under each heading identifying the ground of rejection being contested, any claim(s) argued separately or as a subgroup shall be argued under a separate subheading that identifies the claim(s) by number."). The Rules pertaining to appeals before the Board provide: When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone. Id. As stated above, we decide the appeal as to independent claims 1, 8, and 13 based on representative claim 1. For these reasons, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 1 over JP '366 and Bohm. As such, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 8 and 13, which fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant does not present any separate arguments for patentability of dependent claims 10 and 15, which depend from claims 8 and 13, respectively. As such, we sustain the rejections of claims 10 and 15 for the same reasons as provided above. 8 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 Appellant presents arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6. Br. 22-23. 4 We select claim 2 as representative, and claims 3, 5, and 6 stand or fall with claim 2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that "the electric motor controller sets a target braking force in accordance with at least an operational amount of braking operation by a driver, and performs the field- weakening control in accordance with a rate of change of the target braking force." Br. 29 (Claims App.). Appellant explains that performance of the field-weakening control in accordance with a rate of change of the target braking force is "to quickly adapt the system to an emergency situation, as discussed in paragraphs [0047]-[0049] of the specification" and that "[t]his limitation is not taught, suggested or rendered obvious by any reference of record." Br. 16. In particular, Appellant contests the Examiner's finding that Bohm' s actuating force gradient corresponds to a rate of change of target braking force as claimed. Id. at 23 (challenging finding on Final Act. 3 (citing Bohm, col. 2, 11. 36-64)). Appellant contends that in the claimed invention, "a field-weakening control is performed in a manner corresponding to a time-differentiated target brake force or fluid pressure, rather than a time-differentiated operation amount as suggested by the cited art." Id. (emphasis omitted). 4 Although Appellant presents arguments directed to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 14 as a group (Br. 16), Appellant also presents additional arguments directed to subject matter present in claims 9 and 14 under a separate subheading (Br. 25). As such, we address the patentability of claims 9 and 14 separately from this group. 9 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 The Examiner's finding that the actuating force gradient of Bohm corresponds to the rate of change of the target braking force is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In particular, we understand "actuating force gradient" to refer to a time-differentiated target braking force. Appellant does not appear to contest the Examiner's determination that Bohm's gradient is "time-differentiated." Rather, Appellant argues that Bohm's "actuating force" does not correspond to the claimed "braking force." Appellant has not, however, cogently explained this distinction in a manner to persuade us that the Examiner erred in the contested finding. Appellant does not explain the patentable distinction between performing field-weakening control in accordance with a rate of change of target braking force and a rate of change of target operation amount. In fact, claim 2 appears to correlate the two by reciting that "the electric motor controller sets a target braking force in accordance with at least an operational amount of braking operation by a driver." See Ans. 5 (noting that "the target braking force is set based on the operation amount, therefore the rate of operational amount has a correlation with the rate of the target braking force"). As such, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 2, or claims 3, 5, and 6, which fall with claim 2, over JP '366 and Bohm. Dependent claims 7, 12, and 17 Appellant presents arguments for dependent claims 7, 12, and 17. Br. 23-24. We select claim 7 as representative of the group, and claims 12 and 17 stand or fall with claim 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 7 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites that "the electric motor controller detects the load characteristics based on fluid pressure of the brake 10 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 caliper and at least one of a rotational position of the motor and an advance position of the slave cylinder piston." Br. 30 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that JP '366 "discloses a pressure sensor for detecting brake force" and that Bohm "teaches field weakening according to brake force and motor position and further explains that motor load is different during overcoming of free travel." Final Act. 3 (citing Bohm, col. 5, 11. 1-13). Appellant contests the Examiner's finding that Bohm discloses field weakening according to motor position. Br. 24. The Examiner responds that Bohm teaches motor position as a control variable. Ans. 6 (citing Bohm, col. 2, 11. 55-57). The Examiner's finding is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In particular, Bohm teaches using "the actual value of the motor position" supplied as an input value to the calculating module and transformed into a current control signal applied to the electric motor. Bohm, col. 2, 11. 43-57. For these reasons, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 7 over JP '366 and Bohm. As such, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 7, and claims 12 and 17, which fall with claim 7, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. recite: Dependent claims 9 and 14 Claims 9 and 14 depend from claims 8 and 13, respectively, and the electric motor controller sets a target braking force in accordance with at least an operational amount of braking operation by a driver, determines that an abnormal braking condition exists when a rate of change of the target braking force exceeds a predetermined value, and performs the field- weakening control in accordance with the rate of change of the target braking force. 11 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 Br. 31, 33 (Claims App.). The Examiner interpreted "abnormal braking" as "a condition ofhigh brake demand." Final Act. 3. Based on this interpretation, the Examiner found that JP '366, as modified by Bohm, performs field-weakening control at high brake demands. Id. at 3--4. This finding, however, is not commensurate with the language of claims 9 and 14, which calls for the electric motor controller to actually make a determination that an abnormal braking condition exists. Br. 25 (arguing that "the JP '366 disclosure does not appear to address the issue of an abnormal braking condition that exists when a rate of change of the target braking force exceeds a predetermined value."). The Examiner's rejection simply finds that the modified system of JP '366 would perform field- weakening control during high brake demand conditions. The Examiner has failed, however, to provide adequate reasoning to explain, in light of the teachings of JP '366 and Bohm, why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify the electric motor controller of the modified JP '366 system to determine an abnormal braking condition as set forth in claims 9 and 14. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over JP '366 and Bohm. Dependent claims 19 and 20 Claims 19 and 20 depend from claims 1 and 8, respectively, and recite that "the system is configured and arranged so that during normal operation thereof, the shutoff valve is demagnetized so as to be in an open state." Br. 34 (Claims App.). Although presented under a separate subheading, Appellant does not contest the finding that JP '366 discloses the shutoff valves in the configuration as claimed, and instead relies on the arguments presented for patentability of the independent claims from which these 12 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 claims depend. Id. at 25. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20 for the same reasons provided supra for claim 1. Second Ground of Rejection Appellant argues the claims subject to the second ground of rejection as a group. Br. 5. We select claim 4 as the representative claim for the group, and claims 11 and 16 stand or fall with claim 4. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 4 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites that "the electric motor controller detects the load characteristics each time an ignition switch of a vehicle on which the brake system is installed is turned on." Br. 30 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that Villec discloses a similar electric motor control arrangement for a braking system and "teach[ es] the determination of load characteristics at vehicle startup." Final Act. 4 (citing Villec, Fig. 3). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use the startup initialization of Villec in the modified system of JP '366 "so that the controller is properly calibrated for maximum performance." Id. Appellant first argues that Villec does not overcome the deficiencies of JP '366 and Bohm, as presented for the first ground of rejection. Br. 26. Having found no deficiencies in the combination of JP '366 and Bohm as it pertains to the claims relevant to this ground of rejection, we are not persuaded by this first argument of error in the rejection of claim 4. Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in the proposed further modification of the system of JP '366 with the teachings of Villec, "because such modification would render the JP '366 system inoperable for [its] intended purpose." Id. Appellant explains that "Villec teaches 13 Appeal2014-004329 Application 12/006,833 controlling motor speed by increasing the current applied thereto, rather than by field weakening." Id. at 27. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Answer: The field weakening control does not appear to be a direct control of the motor speed, rather it changes the torque produced for a given speed. Therefore, using current to control the motor speed does not conflict with or teach away from field weakening control. Ans. 7. As such, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 4 over JP '366, Bohm, and Villec. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4, and claims 11 and 16, which fall with claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 is AFFIRMED. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9 and 14 is REVERSED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 14 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation