Ex Parte Wessels et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 24, 2004

09349214 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2004)

1 Application for patent filed on July 6, 1999.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte GERHARD F. WESSELS, SHYAM V. POTTI,
and JOSEPH THOMAS DALUM
__________
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application 09/349,2141
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before GROSS, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-10.
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
2
INVENTION
Appellants' invention involves an improved method and
apparatus using multiple point crash sensing and multiple sensor
occupant position sensing for classifying a crash event and
determining which restraint should be deployed. Appellants'
Specification, page 1, line 24 to page 2, line 1.
Appellants disclose a central controller which collects
crash data from multiple distributed crash sensors, either in the
form of raw data or pre-characterized indications of severity,
and combines severity characterization data from each of the
multiple sensors to construct a characterization table or matrix
for the entire system. Specification, page 2, lines 2-5. Each
possible crash event classification is represented by a
characterization value mask, and the various masks are
sequentially applied to the system characterization table until a
match is found, with a match identifying the appropriate crash
event classification. The classification decision, in turn, is
used to determine which, if any, of the restraint devices should
be deployed based upon the crash severity. Similarly, the
controller collects data from various occupant position sensors
to construct a characterization table or matrix for the occupant
position detection system. Each possible occupant position
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
3
sensor classification is represented by a characterization value
mask, and various masks are sequentially applied to the table
until a match is found, with a match identifying the appropriate
occupant position status. The occupant position status, in turn,
is used to determine which, if any, of the restraints may be
deployed. The outputs of both the crash classification function
and the occupant position are combined in a logical AND function
to determine which restraints should ultimately be deployed.
Specification, page 2, lines 5-20.
Appellants' system also includes a centrally located crash
sensor, and the controller computes a displacement and/or
velocity difference between the central crash sensor and some or
all of the distributed crash sensors, and characterizes the
differences to construct an intrusion table, which may be part of
the characterization matrix, or a separate matrix. The intrusion
classification is determined and combined with the crash
classification to determine which restraints should ultimately be
deployed. Specification, page 2, lines 21-27.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and is
reproduced as follows:
1. In a vehicle supplemental restraint system including a
plurality of remote crash sensors for providing localized crash
severity measurements to a central controller, and a plurality of
restraints selectively deployed by the central controller for
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
4
protection of the vehicle occupants, the improvement wherein said
central controller processes the localized crash severity
measurements provided by said plurality of remote crash sensors
and determines which of said plurality of restraints to deploy
by:
(a) storing a crash classification mask for each of a
plurality of crash classifications, each such mask comprising a
set of predetermined remote crash sensor values characteristic of
the respective crash classification and a restraint deployment
code identifying which of the restraints should be deployed for
the respective crash classification;
(b) collecting crash severity measurements from the remote
crash sensors in the course of a crash event, and storing such
measurements in a crash characterization table;
(c) consecutively applying said crash classification masks
to said crash characterization table, and in the event of a match
between the predetermined values of a given crash classification
mask and the sensor measurements stored in said crash
characterization table, identifying a restraint deployment code
from such given crash classification mask; and
(d) analyzing the identified restraint deployment code to
determine which of said plurality of restraints to deploy.
REFERENCES
The references relied on by Examiner are as follows:
Iyoda 5,899,946 May 4, 1999
(filed Oct. 4, 1996)
Kincaid 5,899,949 May 4, 1999
(filed Jan. 26, 1998)
Hermann et al. 6,113,138 Sep. 5, 2000
(Hermann) (filed Dec. 9, 1997)
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Hermann. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on September 3, 2002. We will
refer to this brief as the brief. Appellants filed a reply brief
on January 10, 2003. We will refer to Appellants' reply brief as
the reply brief. The Examiner mailed an Office communication on
April 8, 2003 stating that the reply brief has been entered.
5
over Hermann in view of Kincaid. Claims 5-10 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hermann in view of Kincaid and
further in view of Iyoda.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the briefs2
and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellants and
Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims
3-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We first turn to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejections.
Anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) requires
that "each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949,
1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999) citing Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
6
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The first step of an anticipation analysis is claim construction.
Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1346, 54 USPQ2d
1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000). It is well settled that claim
construction includes a review of the claim language and the
specification. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576-77 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Ordinary principles of claim construction require that "claim
language be given ordinary and accustomed meaning except where a
different meaning is clearly set forth in the specification or
where the accustomed meaning would deprive the claim of clarity."
Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 215 F.3d
1281, 1287, 55 USPQ2d 1065, 1069.
We now consider the arguments presented for independent
claim 1.
Appellants first argue that "there is no basis for the
examiner's statement that Hermann et al. disclose storing a crash
classification mask for each of a plurality of crash
classifications, each such mask comprising a set of predetermined
sensor values characteristic of the respective crash
classification and a restraint deployment code identifying which
of the restraints should be deployed." Brief at page 5, lines
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
7
14-18. Appellants further state that "there is no basis for the
examiner's statement that Hermann et al. disclose collecting and
storing crash severity measurements in a crash classification
table." Brief at page 5, lines 20 and 21. Appellants further
argue that "there is no basis for the examiner's statement that
Hermann et al. disclose consecutively applying crash
classification masks to the crash characterization table, and in
the event of a match between a given crash classification mask
and the stored sensor measurements, and identifying a restraint
deployment code from the given crash classification mask and
analyzing the identified restraint deployment code to determine
which of said plurality of restraints to deploy." Brief at page
5, lines 23-28. Appellants compare their invention to Hermann
and state at page 6 of the brief, lines 17-25:
Hermann et al. disclose a convention ad hoc approach in
which specified deployment conditions are evaluated for
each restraint, while Appellants disclose a novel
approach in which the sensor measurements are used to
characterize the crash, and once the type of crash is
determined, a set of deployment actions peculiar to
that type of crash are carried out. With Hermann's
approach, the evaluation unit must repeatedly check
whether the deployment conditions for each of the
various restraints have been met, whereas with
Appellants' approach the crash classification masks are
only applied to the crash characterization table until
a match is found, and then the various restraints
relevant to the identified type of crash are deployed.
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
8
The Examiner responds that Hermann actually discloses three
different crash classifications on lines 35-48, column 7. The
first classification is a head on collision where the driver's
air bag and belt retractor would be activated. The second
classification is a side impact where the side impact air bags
and head air bags are activated. The third classification is a
roll over where a roll over bar and head air bags are activated.
The Examiner continues
If the system operated as the appellant asserts, the
evaluation device would go through a sequence of
checking whether the driver's airbag should be
operated, then check if the belt retractor should be
activated, then the side airbag and so on. But from
the disclosure of Hermann it is very clear that the
sensors are examined to determine a type of crash, such
as a roll over or front impact, and then when this type
or 'class' of crash is determined, the appropriate
devices are activated. Examiner's Answer at pages 3
and 4.
The Examiner concludes that "when Hermann is sampling the
acceleration signals they must be put into memory in the
evaluation device in order to make a comparison to the thresholds
that define the types or 'classes' of crashes previously
mentioned. The appellant seems to be relying on the terminology
of 'characterization table,' but that is simply a space in memory
to store the sensor measurements." Examiner's Answer at page 4.

Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
9
We note that claim 1 requires the following steps:
(a) storing a crash classification mask for each of a
plurality of crash classifications, each such mask comprising a
set of predetermined remote crash sensor values characteristic of
the respective crash classification and a restraint deployment
code identifying which of the restraints should be deployed for
the respective crash classification;
(b) collecting crash severity measurements from the remote
crash sensors in the course of a crash event, and storing such
measurements in a crash characterization table;
(c) consecutively applying said crash classification masks
to said crash characterization table, and in the event of a match
between the predetermined values of a given crash classification
mask and the sensor measurements stored in said crash
characterization table, identifying a restraint deployment code
from such given crash classification mask; and
(d) analyzing the identified restraint deployment code to
determine which of said plurality of restraints to deploy.
We find that Hermann does not expressly teach Appellants'
claimed steps. Our reviewing court states: "[I]f the prior art
reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of
the claim, that reference still may anticipate if the element is
'inherent' in its disclosure." In re Robertson, supra, 169 F.3d
743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 citing Continental Can Co. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). Therefore, the question presented to us is whether
Hermann inherently discloses each and every step in claim 1. We
note that step (a) of Appellants' claim 1 requires the limitation
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
10
"a crash classification mask" and "a restraint deployment code."
Therefore, our first step is to determine the meaning of the
terms "crash classification mask” and "restraint deployment
code."
Upon review of Appellants' application in entirety, we find
that Appellants do not provide a special meaning for the term
"mask." Therefore, the term "mask" in the claim is accorded its
ordinary and customary meaning. We rely on the attached
definition of the term "mask" in Computer Dictionary, Microsoft
Press, Second Edition 1994, for its ordinary meaning:
A binary value used to selectively screen out or let
through certain bits in a data value. Masking is
performed by using a logical operator (AND, OR, XOR,
NOT) to combine the mask and the data value. For
example, the mask 00111111, when used with the AND
operator, removes (mask off) the two uppermost bits in
a data value but does not affect the rest of the value.
This is shown in the figure, which uses the data value
11010101. See also logic operator, mask bit.
11010101 Data value
AND 00111111 Mask
00010101 Resulting value
Mask
An example of a masking operation using the logical
operator AND
Returning to Appellants' specification, at page 5,
Appellants disclose:
[T]he present invention is directed to a control
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
11
methodology by which the central controller analyzes
the crash data developed by the CAS and the satellite
acceleration sensors 24-35, and the occupant position
data developed by the occupant sensors 36-41, for
purposes of determining which, if any, of the
restraints 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 should be deployed.
In general, this is achieved according to this
invention by using the sensor data to construct
characterization tables for the vehicle, and by
applying various masks to the tables for the purpose of
classifying the crash event and restraint status, and
deciding whether one or more of the restraints 12, 14,
16, 18, 19, 20 should be deployed based on the
determined classification status. Three tables are
described: a crash classification table based on sensed
crash severity, an intrusion table based on sensed
intrusion in a crash event, and an occupant
classification table based on occupant sensor data. In
a preferred embodiment, the classifications determined
from the crash classification and intrusion tables are
combined in a logical OR function, and the result is
combined with a restraint status determined from the
occupant classification table in a logical AND function
to determine which restraints should be deployed.
Thus, Appellants' crash classification mask is a unique
binary number which is used in a logical operation to combine
with the sensor data to arrive at a restraint deployment code.
Returning to Hermann, we note that Hermann teaches "all of
the acceleration signals or signals derived from them are
evaluated in the evaluation device, for example by being compared
with a threshold value or processed algorithmically. When the
threshold is exceeded or a triggering criterion is fulfilled
during the algorithmic processing, the respective protection
device is triggered." See Hermann, column 7, lines 50-56. In
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
12
other words, Hermann's central controller 3 processes the signals
provided by the sensors by comparing them with a predetermined
value below which the protection device cannot be triggered. We
find that Hermann teaches three different crash classifications
and a threshold value with which the acceleration signals or
signals derived from the sensors is compared. Thus, when Hermann
is sampling the acceleration signals, the signals must be put
into memory in the evaluation device in order to make a
comparison with the thresholds that define the types or "classes"
of crashes previously mentioned. However, we fail to find that
the claimed features "crash classification mask for each of the
crash classifications" and the "restraint deployment code
identifying which of the restraints should be deployed" are
necessarily present in the things described by Hermann, and that
it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. In fact,
Hermann is totally silent about the classification masks and
restraint deployment codes. Hermann only teaches the signals and
the comparison of the signals with the threshold value. The
portions of column 7, lines 35-48 that the Examiner relies on for
rejecting claim 1 merely address the problem of identifying which
of the restraints should be deployed by comparison of the signals
with the threshold value. Hermann's control device does not
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
13
concern the crash classification mask used in a logical operation
to combine with the sensor data to arrive at a restraint
deployment code. Simply put, Hermann's approach to solving the
problem of which restraint(s) should be deployed is different
from Appellants' approach.
The Examiner apparently relies on inherency in maintaining
that Hermann teaches the crash classification masks and restraint
deployment codes. See page 2 of the final Office action on May
7, 2002. "To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must
make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
present in the thing described in the reference, and that it
would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill." In re
Robertson, supra, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-1951
citing Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268,
20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991). "Inherency, however, may
not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient." In re Robertson, supra,
169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1951.
We fail to find that the Examiner has established that
Hermann's control device must employ "crash classification mask"
used in a logical operation to combine with the sensor data to
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
14
arrive at a restraint deployment code as recited in steps a-d of
claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, we note that claim 2 recites the
above limitations "crash classification mask" and "restraint
deployment code" due to its dependency on claim 1. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 for the
same reasons as above.
We now address the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious by Hermann in view of
Kincaid.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In are Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met, does the burden of coming
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
15
forward with evidence or argument shift to Appellants. Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d
at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. An obviousness analysis commences with
a review and consideration of all pertinent evidence and
arguments. "In reviewing the [E]xaminer's decision on appeal,
the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and
argument." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444.
"[T]he board must not only assure that the requisite findings are
made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the
agency's conclusion." In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We note that claims 3 and 4 recite limitations "crash
classification mask" and "restraint deployment code" discussed
above due to their dependency. We further note that claim 3
recites additional limitations "an occupant classification mask"
and "restraint status code" in steps (a), (c), and (d).
We note that Kincaid teaches "[T]he predetermined criteria
include correct occupant position, collision verification or
safing, and collision severity" in column 2, lines 37-39.
However, we fail to find that Kincaid provides the missing
descriptive matter "crash classification mask" and "restraint
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
16
deployment code" in claim 1. Therefore, a combination of Hermann
and Kincaid still does not provide the missing piece "crash
classification mask" used in a logical operation to combine with
the sensor data to arrive at "a restraint deployment code."
Without an objective teaching or suggestion of the crash
classification mask and restraint deployment code in the prior
art, the Examiner cannot satisfy the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 4 as
obvious over Hermann in view of Kincaid.
Finally, we consider now the rejection of claims 5-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious by Hermann and Kincaid and
further in view of Iyoda.
We note that claim 5 recites the limitations "crash
classification mask" and "restraint deployment code" discussed
above due to their dependency. We further note that claim 5
recites additional limitations "an intrusion classification mask"
and "an intrusion deployment code" in steps (b) - (d).
We find that Iyoda also does not provide the missing
descriptive matter "crash classification mask" used in a logical
operation to combine with the sensor data to arrive at "a
restraint deployment code" in claim 1. Instead, Iyoda provides
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
17
for a method of computing of an intrusion indication for each of
the remote crash sensors. Iyoda is similar to Hermann because
Iyoda also teaches a method including "the steps of: (a)
determining an amount of deformation of the vehicle based on a
state of said vehicle, which crashes into the collision object;
and (b) activating the passive restraint when the amount of
deformation determined in the step (a) exceeds a specified
threshold value." See Iyoda, col. 4, lines 31-40. Therefore, a
combination of Hermann, Kincaid, and Iyoda does not provide the
mentioned missing piece "crash classification mask" used in a
logical operation to combine with the sensor data to arrive at "a
restraint deployment code." Without an objective teaching or
suggestion of the crash classification mask and restraint
deployment code in the prior art, the Examiner cannot satisfy the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 5-10 as obvious over Hermann in view of Kincaid and
further in view of Iyoda.
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
18
SUMMARY
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained
the rejections of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and
claims 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/lbg
Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
19
JIMMY L. FUNKE
DELPHI LEGAL STAFF
MAIL CODE A 107
KOKOMO, IN 46904-9005