Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 23, 2021

2020002089 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/630,722 06/22/2017 Jill Trappe 83837229 6543
117396 7590 02/23/2021
FGTL/Burgess Law Office, PLLC
P.O. Box 214320
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320
EXAMINER
MORRIS, DAVID R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3659
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2021 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 JILL TRAPPE, SEBASTIAN LEITERMANN, and
MARC SUERMANN
Appeal 2020-002089
Application 15/630,722
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 5, 6, and 8.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8–11 are pending, claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 are
rejected, claim 9 is objected to, and claims 10 and 11 are allowed. See Final
Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2. Appellant does not appeal the rejection of claims 1
and 2. Appeal Br. 10, 12 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-002089
Application 15/630,722

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a system and method of controlling
an electric parking brake. Spec. ¶ 3.
Claim 5, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
5. A motor vehicle comprising:
an electric parking brake;
a clutch sensor, said clutch sensor generating a signal
based on operation of a clutch of the motor vehicle;
a gear selection sensor, said gear selection sensor
generating a signal indicative of a particular gear selected from
a plurality of gears in a manual gearbox of the motor vehicle;
and
a control unit connected to the electric parking brake, said
control unit sending a deactivation signal to release the electric
parking brake if a clutch operation is detected and at least a first
gear or a reverse gear is selected as the particular gear from the
plurality of gears in the manual gearbox.

Appeal Br. 10–11 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Tury US 4,817,471 Apr. 4, 1989
Bennett GB 2 376 990 Dec. 31, 2002

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Bennett.
II. Claims 1–3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bennett and Tury.
Appeal 2020-002089
Application 15/630,722

3
OPINION
Rejection I (Bennett)
Claims 5 and 6
The Examiner finds that Bennett discloses all of the elements recited
in claim 5, including a gear selection sensor that generates a signal indicative
of a particular gear selected from a plurality of gears in a manual gearbox.
Final Act. 2–3 (citing Bennett 1:23–25, Fig. 5). The Examiner relies on
lines 5–11 of page 2 of Bennett to disclose a control unit that sends a
deactivation signal to release the electric parking brake if a clutch operation
is detected and at least a first gear or a reverse gear is selected. Id. at 3.
Appellant argues that, in light of paragraphs 26 and 27 of the
Specification, the phrase “a signal indicative of a particular gear selected
from a plurality of gears” in claim 5 should be construed more narrowly than
simply a signal indicating that a vehicle is in gear. Appeal Br. 4–7.
Appellant asserts that, under this interpretation of claim 5, Bennett fails to
meet all the limitations of claim 5 because “[n]othing in Bennett refers to
selection of a particular gear, selected from a plurality of gears in a manual
gearbox.” Id. at 5. Appellant contends the Examiner’s interpretation of
claim 5 ignores the language “a particular gear” in claim 5. Id.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that the requirement in
claim 5 for “‘a particular gear’ was not ignored, as the Final rejection
addresses the ‘particular gear’ and maps the limitation to page 2 lines 13–14
of Bennett to teach ‘release of the park brake force further requires an
additional signal that indicates that a gear has been selected.’” Ans. 5.
Claim 5 specifies that the signal generated by the gear selection sensor
is indicative of a particular gear selected from a plurality of gears. See
Appeal 2020-002089
Application 15/630,722

4
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). We agree with Appellant that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of this phrase, in light of Appellant’s Specification,
is that the signal is indicative of more than merely the fact that the vehicle is
in a particular, albeit unknown, gear. Rather, according to the precise
language of the claim, the signal must be indicative of the particular gear
itself. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this phrase to
mean the signal includes information identifying which specific (particular)
gear has been selected. All words in a claim must be considered in judging
the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
1385 (CCPA 1970). Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Bennett’s disclosure
of “an additional signal that indicates that a gear has been selected” meets
the requirements of claim 5 is based on an unreasonably broad interpretation
of the claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 5 and associated dependent claim 6 as anticipated by Bennett.
Rejection II (Bennett and Tury)
Claims 1 and 2
Appellant’s listing of claims 1 and 2 in the Claims Appendix includes
the identifier (Rejected–Not Appealed). Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
Further, the Appeal Brief does not include arguments in support of the
patentability of these claims. See Appeal Br. 3–9. Accordingly, we
summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2. See 37 CFR
§§ 41.31(c), 41.37(c)(1)(iv), and 41.39(a)(1); see also In re Berger, 279 F.3d
975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming the Board’s affirmance of an uncontested
rejection, holding that the appellant had waived the right to contest the
rejection by not presenting arguments on appeal to the Board); Hyatt v.
Appeal 2020-002089
Application 15/630,722

5
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“the applicant can waive
appeal of a ground of rejection”).
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites, in part, “wherein the
selected gear of the manual gearbox is detected and analyzed.” Appeal Br.
10 (Claims App.). Claim 1 recites the step of “detecting a gear selection of a
manual gearbox of the motor vehicle.” Id.
The Examiner finds that “Bennett discloses the selected gear of the
manual gearbox is detected and analyzed (the selected gear is “detected and
analyzed” in that the parking brake release condition requires a gear to be
selected, at least).” Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Tury to disclose a
seat belt monitor. Id.
Appellant asserts that Bennett may disclose a signal indicating a gear
has been selected, but nothing in Bennett discloses detecting and analyzing
the selected gear, and the Examiner dos not identify any disclosure from
Bennett corresponding to the language of claim 3. Appeal Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that Bennett’s receipt of a
signal “constitutes detecting the signal,” and Bennett’s use of logic in its
controller to condition disengagement of the parking brake “constitutes
analyzing the signal.” See Ans. 6–7.
In reply, Appellant argues claim 1 recites detecting a gear selection,
and “[c]laim 3 adds the method step when the selected gear of the manual
gearbox is detected and analyzed. Bennett does not disclose detecting and
analyzing the selected gear. Nor does the Examiner explain how a negative
signal and a positive signal somehow detect the ‘selected gear.’” Reply Br.
3 (“Bennett . . . does not detect the selected gear”).
Appeal 2020-002089
Application 15/630,722

6
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over
Bennett and Tury because mere detection that Bennett’s vehicle is in gear
does not equate to the step recited in claim 3, which requires that a selected
gear is further “detected and analyzed.” In this regard, as claim 1 recites the
step of “detecting a gear selection,” the additional step recited in claim 3
must further determine information about the selected gear, i.e., claim 3
requires “detect[ing]” the gear that has been selected. Thus, similar to the
rejection of claim 5 discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3
relies on an unreasonably broad interpretation. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Bennett and Tury.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 5, and the Examiner’s use of the
disclosure in Tury does not remedy the deficiency discussed above regarding
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. See Final Act. 4–5. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over
Bennett and Tury.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part.

Appeal 2020-002089
Application 15/630,722

7

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
5, 6 102 Bennett 5, 6
1–3, 8 103 Bennett, Tury 1, 2 3, 8
Overall
Outcome
1, 2 3, 5, 6, 8

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED IN PART