FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2020

14831405 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020)

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.
14/831,405 08/20/2015 Felix Weinreich 83555044 1029
117396 7590 10/21/2020
FGTL/Burgess Law Office, PLLC
P.O. Box 214320
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320
EXAMINER
HOLWERDA, STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2020 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 FELIX WEINREICH, FRANK PETER ENGELS,
JENS DORNHEGE, and GOETZ-PHILLIPP WEGNER
Appeal 2020-001556
Application 14/831,405
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, 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 1–7, 9, 11, and 12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001556
Application 14/831,405

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a method and apparatus for
limiting torque demands of a steering-assistance device.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for limiting steering assistance torque comprising:
providing at least one sensor obtaining vehicle operating
parameters;
providing a steering assist device, said steering assist
device generating an assistance-torque demand based on
vehicle speed;
establishing a vehicle operating parameter limit criterion
independent of vehicle speed using a characteristic map of a
rate of change of steering wheel angle and a manual torque
applied by a vehicle operator and determining whether a
violation of the limit criterion exists based on said characteristic
map;
examining the manual torque applied by the vehicle
operator and the rate of change of the steering wheel angle and
providing a transient assistance-torque limit when a violation of
the limit criterion occurs; and
limiting the assistance-torque demand based on the
transient assistance-torque limit.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Krieger US 2007/0062755 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
REJECTION
Claims 1–7, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Krieger.

Appeal 2020-001556
Application 14/831,405

3
OPINION
Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising, in pertinent part,
“establishing a vehicle operating parameter limit criterion independent of
vehicle speed using a characteristic map of a rate of change of steering
wheel angle and a manual torque applied by a vehicle operator and
determining whether a violation of the limit criterion exists based on said
characteristic map.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Claim 12, which is the
only other independent claim, recites a motor vehicle steering system
comprising, in relevant part, “a characteristic map of the rate of change of
the steering wheel angle plotted over a manual torque applied by the vehicle
operator and not including said vehicle parameter used for generating said
assistance-torque demand.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Krieger discloses a system as recited in claim
1, including, in pertinent part:
establishing a vehicle operating parameter limit criterion (as per
404, 308) independent of vehicle speed using a characteristic
map of a rate of change of steering wheel angle (as per 44) and
a manual torque applied by a vehicle operator (as per 50) and
determining whether a violation of the limit criterion exists
based on said characteristic map (Figs. 3-4; ¶0022-0025).
Final Act. 2–3.
The Examiner also finds that Krieger discloses a system as recited in
claim 12, including, in relevant part:
a characteristic map (as per 402, 308) of the rate of change of
the steering wheel angle (as per 44) plotted over a manual
torque applied by the vehicle operator (as per 50) and not
including said vehicle parameter (as per 42) used for generating
said assistance-torque demand (302) (Figs. 1-4; ¶0016-0025).
Appeal 2020-001556
Application 14/831,405

4
Final Act. 4–5.
Appellant contends:
The Examiner has not sufficiently mapped the disclosure
of Krieger to the limitation of claim 1 requiring a characteristic
map of a rate of change of steering wheel angle and a manual
torque applied by a vehicle operator and determining whether a
violation of the limit criterion exists based on the characteristic
map.
Appeal Br. 6. Similarly, Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner cites no
structure from Krieger corresponding to the characteristic map element of
claim 12,” and particularly “to the limitation in claim 12 that the
characteristic map is the rate of change of steering wheel angle plotted over
a manual torque applied by the vehicle operator.” Id. at 9–10.
In response, the Examiner explains that Krieger compares handwheel
velocity and vehicle steering wheel torque to “values defined by
characteristic maps (as per ‘HW VELOCITY DEPENDENT SCALE
FACTOR’ and ‘TORQUE DEPENDENT SCALING’ in Fig. 4) (Figs. 3-4;
¶22-25)” and, based on this comparison, determines an appropriate scale
factor due to handwheel velocity and an appropriate scale factor due to
handwheel torque. Ans. 4–5. With respect to the limitation of claim 12 that
the characteristic map is the rate of change of steering wheel angle plotted
over a manual torque applied by the vehicle operator, the Examiner states
that “the rejection identifies scale factors (402/404, 308) for supplying the
active damping torque signal (72) by comparing data as per sensor signals
(44, 50) with data as per the maps illustrated in Figure 4.” Id. at 15.
Appellant asserts that, consistent with Appellant’s Specification, “the
term ‘characteristic map’” requires “two independent values or variables.”
Appeal 2020-001556
Application 14/831,405

5
Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, “[a] map is a relation between two
sets, for example, a mathematical correspondence that assigns one element
of one set to an element of another set.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 20; Fig. 1).
Appellant points out that the Examiner finds that Krieger “discloses at least
two characteristic maps” — “‘HW VELOCITY DEPENDENT SCALE
FACTOR’ and ‘TORQUE DEPENDENT SCALING.’” Id. at 2–3.
Appellant contends that “Krieger maps handwheel torque with a scale factor
and handwheel velocity with a scale factor,” but that “Krieger does not map
handwheel velocity with handwheel torque.” Id. at 3. For the reasons that
follow, Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
The description of a “characteristic map” in paragraph 20 of
Appellant’s Specification and the illustration in Appellant’s Figure 1 of a
plot of the time derivative of the steering wheel angle over manual torque
applied by the operator support Appellant’s asserted construction of
“characteristic map” as requiring a relation between two sets of values of
independent variables. Thus, a characteristic map of a rate of change of
steering wheel angle and a manual torque applied by a vehicle operator
requires a relation between a set of values of rate of change of steering
wheel angle and a set of values of manual torque applied by the operator.
Krieger, on the other hand, does not disclose a map of rate of change
of steering wheel angle (i.e., handwheel velocity) and a manual torque
applied by the operator (i.e., handwheel torque) as called for in claim 1,
much less a map of the rate of change of the steering wheel angle plotted
over a manual torque applied by the vehicle operator as called for in claim
12. Rather, at best, Krieger discloses a first map of handwheel velocity
dependent scale factor and handwheel velocity (i.e., handwheel velocity
Appeal 2020-001556
Application 14/831,405

6
dependent scale factor plotted over handwheel velocity) and a second map of
handwheel torque dependent scaling factor and handwheel torque (i.e.,
handwheel torque dependent scaling factor plotted over handwheel torque).
See Krieger, Fig. 4; ¶¶ 24–25. Indeed, the wording of the Examiner’s
finding reveals that this is the case by referring to “characteristic maps” in
the plural (HW VELOCITY DEPENDENT SCALE FACTOR and
TORQUE DEPENDENT SCALING), rather than to a characteristic map.
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
In order to compute active damping torque 72, Krieger multiplies the
vehicle speed dependent damping value 302 by a product of handwheel
velocity and handwheel dependent scale factor 402 to produce intermediate
damping torque signal 406, and then multiples intermediate damping torque
signal 406 by handwheel torque dependent scale factor 308. Krieger, Fig. 4;
¶¶ 24–25. Krieger does not map or correlate handwheel velocity and
handwheel torque to one another, much less plot handwheel velocity over
handwheel torque.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Krieger anticipates the subject matter of
independent claim 1 or independent claim 12.
Moreover, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to identify
in Krieger a disclosure of determining whether a violation of the limit
criterion exists based on the characteristic map, as recited in claim 1. With
respect to this limitation, the Examiner cites Figures 3–4 and paragraphs 22–
25 of Krieger. Final Act. 3. The Examiner does not specifically pinpoint
where, in Figures 3 and 4 and in paragraphs 22–25, Krieger discloses
determining whether a violation of the limit criterion exists based on the
Appeal 2020-001556
Application 14/831,405

7
characteristic map, and we do not discern such disclosure in these portions
of Krieger. The only additional explanation that the Examiner offers is that
“the rejection identifies scale factors (404, 308) for initiating active damping
under specified circumstances by comparing data as per sensor signals (44,
50) with data as per the maps illustrated in Figure 4.” Ans. 12. This
explanation is not sufficiently illuminating to identify a disclosure of
determining whether a violation exists. For this additional reason, the
Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Krieger
anticipates the subject matter of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 12, or of claims 2–7, 9, and 11, which depend from claim 1, as
anticipated by Krieger.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, and 11–12 is
REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9, 11,
12
Krieger 1–7, 9, 11,
12

REVERSED