Steering Solutions IP Holding Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2021

2020003969 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 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.
14/813,709 07/30/2015 Frank P. Lubischer 088610-02704
(N000408US)
8662
59582 7590 01/11/2021
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 WEST BIG BEAVER ROAD
SUITE 300
TROY, MI 48084-3312
EXAMINER
SMITH, ISAAC G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/11/2021 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):
DWPatents@dickinson-wright.com
tgood@dickinsonwright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANK P. LUBISCHER and RICHARD K. RIEFE
____________

Appeal 2020-003969
Application 14/813,709
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BRETT C. MARTIN, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3–6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 18–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Steering Solutions IP Holding
Corporation., as the real-party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003969
Application 14/813,709
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claims are directed generally “to steering wheel
assemblies and, more particularly, to a rotation control system for a steering
wheel.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added on
certain limitations at issue in this case, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter on appeal.
1. A rotational control system for a steering wheel
comprising:
a single steering wheel, the entire steering wheel
switchable between a rotational condition and a non-
rotational condition, a steering wheel angle of the entire
steering wheel in a straight ahead position in the non-
rotational condition, the rotational condition being
rotation of the steering wheel that corresponds to angular
displacement of a plurality of road wheels of a vehicle;
a steering gear operatively coupled to the plurality
of road wheels, the steering wheel and the steering gear
electrically coupled to each other; and
a controller in operative communication with the
steering wheel and the steering gear, the controller
configured to control the steering gear independent of the
entire steering wheel when the vehicle is in an
autonomous vehicle driving condition, and the controller
configured to allow switching between the rotational
condition and the non-rotational condition at any time
while the vehicle is in the autonomous vehicle driving
condition.
THE REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Gazit US 2013/0002416 A1 Jan. 3, 2013
Wimmer US 2015/0032322 A1 Jan. 29, 2015
Yopp US 2015/0088357 A1 Mar. 26, 2015
Appeal 2020-003969
Application 14/813,709
3

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 3–6, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 19–21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yopp in view of Gazit.
2. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yopp in view of Gazit and further in view of Wimmer.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3–6, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 19–21 over Yopp and Gazit
Independent claims 1, 10, and 16
Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection by initially
conceding that “Yopp does disclose that positioning of the vehicle
components (e.g., steering wheel) can be altered after autonomous driving
has been enabled.” Appeal Br. 9, 12, 15. According to Appellant, however,
the independent claims differ from Yopp because claims 1 and 10, for
example, “recite[] that the steering wheel can be switched between the
rotational condition and the non-rotational condition at any time while the
vehicle is in the autonomous vehicle driving condition.” Id. at 9, 11.
Appellant argues specifically that in Yopp “it is clear that the process ceases
autonomous driving - albeit perhaps briefly - before alteration of the vehicle
component positioning is carried out.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments raise two questions which we address below.
The first question is whether Appellant’s arguments are in fact
commensurate with the claim language, and the second, is whether
Appellant has correctly characterized Yopp’s disclosure. We refer mainly to
Appeal 2020-003969
Application 14/813,709
4
claim 1 because Appellant’s arguments for independent claims 10 and 16
essentially mirror those for claim 1. Compare, e.g., Appeal Br. 9–11, with
id. at 11–14.
Considering first the switching between rotational and non-rotational
conditions limitation recited in claim 1, Appellant argues that the “claimed
invention defines a system that allows an operator to manually switch
between the claimed rotational condition and the non-rotational condition,
without requiring a break in autonomous driving.” Id. at 9–10 (emphasis
added). Therefore, according to Appellant, the switching limitation recited
in claim 1 is not disclosed or taught by Yopp because “Yopp requires
temporary switching to a non-autonomous driving mode to effect the change
in rotational condition.” Id. at 10. Neither independent claims 1, 10, or 16,
however, recite switching between rotational and non-rotational conditions
“without requiring a break in autonomous driving,” as Appellant argues. Id.
at 9–10. Rather, claim 1 recites that switching occurs “at any time while the
vehicle is in the autonomous vehicle driving condition.” (Emphasis added).
A reasonable reading of claim 1 under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard does not exclude a change from autonomous vehicle
driving to a non-autonomous condition. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-
05 (CCPA 1969) (Applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during
prosecution, and broad interpretation reduces the possibility that the claim,
once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified). Claim 1
simply requires that the change in steering condition may occur “while the
vehicle is in the autonomous driving condition.” (Emphasis added). Claim
1 does not state, as Appellant asserts, that switching necessarily occur
“without requiring a break in autonomous driving.” Claim 1 could be
Appeal 2020-003969
Application 14/813,709
5
written to more clearly state such a limitation, for example, “at any time
while the vehicle [remains] in the autonomous vehicle driving condition,” or
“at any time while the vehicle [maintains] the autonomous vehicle driving
condition.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Appellant’s
argument is not commensurate with the language of claim 1.
This brings us to the second question and the disclosure of Yopp.
Even if claim 1, for example, can be read as Appellant argues—that the
limitation means that the rotational control system must allow switching
between rotational and non-rotational conditions “without requiring a break
in autonomous driving,” we are not persuaded that Yopp fails to disclose this
limitation. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant argues that “Yopp requires
temporary switching to a non-autonomous driving mode to effect the change
in rotational condition.” Appeal Br. 10. For support, Appellant points to
Figure2 and paragraph 25 of Yopp and assert that Yopp’s system “briefly”
ceases autonomous driving. Id. at 9. Considering Yopp’s Figure 2,
Appellant argues that “if the position is to be changed at block 245, the
process reverts back to block 235, which occurs prior to enabling of
autonomous driving at block 240.” Id. at 9.
In our view, Appellant’s description mischaracterizes Yopp. We
agree with the Examiner’s position that neither paragraph 25 nor Figure 2 of
Yopp state or show, with any clarity, that Yopp ceases autonomous driving
when position controls are updated at block 235. Ans. 4–8. The portion of
the control system shown in Yopp’s Figure 2, upon which Appellant relies,
is an autonomous driving condition defined by a control loop distinctly
separate from the determination of whether to continue autonomous driving
at block 250. The most reasonable understanding of Figure 2 is that if a
Appeal 2020-003969
Application 14/813,709
6
position change is indicated at block 245, the control loop implements the
new position in the current autonomous driving condition at block 240.
Nowhere in the control loop, including blocks 235, 240, and 245, is it shown
that autonomous driving ceases. Appellant also fails to explain how a brief
cessation of autonomous driving would logically occur in this control loop,
for instance from a safety perspective, or why the autonomous driving
condition would need to end simply to update a variable such as position
control. Thus, even if one were to read the switching limitations in the
claims as Appellant contends, we are not persuaded that Yopp fails to
disclose “switching between the rotational condition and the non-rotational
condition at any time while the vehicle is in the autonomous vehicle driving
condition” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner “fails consider the
reference as a whole” and improperly picks and chooses certain elements
from the prior art. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues specifically that “Gazit
- when considered in its entirety - would not function properly if applied to
the single wheel design of Yopp” because “the two wheels are necessary for
proper operation of the embodiments disclosed by Gazit.” Id. at 10–11.
The Examiner relies upon Gazit to supply the limitation of the “single
steering wheel . . . in a straight ahead position in the non-rotational
condition” as called for in claim 1. Non-Final Action 8–9, Ans. 12. Our
review of Gazit is mostly consistent with the Examiner’s analysis, namely
that Gazit discloses both a single steering wheel embodiment as well as a
double wheel embodiment. See Ans. 12 (the Examiner explaining that
“Gazit teaches multiple embodiments, where one embodiment uses only a
single steering wheel rather than a double wheel”).
Appeal 2020-003969
Application 14/813,709
7
With respect to the “straight ahead position” limitation, Gazit explains
that
the system may, in any of the mentioned embodiments, provide
to the steering wheel some bias, such as spring force, biasing
the wheel toward a position, such as a home position (e.g., a 0°
position).
Gazit ¶ 35. We agree that the Examiner has sufficiently shown that Gazit
teaches a single steering wheel embodiment having a “home position,” and
hence the claimed “straight ahead position,” as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, it is not necessary that all the limitations of a prior art
reference be incorporated into the other for a proper combination. In the
obviousness analysis, the Examiner has simply applied Gazit’s teaching of a
“home position” for a steering wheel, including a single steering wheel, to
Yopp. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“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 devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill”). The Examiner sufficiently reasons that it would be
advantageous to apply Gazit’s “home position” to Yopp “as it would be
inconvenient and confusing to a vehicle operator to have the non-rotating
steering wheel stuck at some angle other than a neutral or 0° position when
the vehicle operator wishes to take control of the steering wheel.” Ans. 12.
Given the disclosures and combination of Yopp and Gazit as they are
supported by articulated reasons and sufficient evidentiary underpinnings,
we agree that Yopp discloses the claimed “switching” limitation in claim 1
as well as the similar manual switching limitations in independent claims 10
and 16. We also agree that Gazit sufficiently teaches “a steering wheel
Appeal 2020-003969
Application 14/813,709
8
angle of the entire steering wheel in a straight ahead position in the non-
rotational condition” as recited in each of independent claims 1, 10, and 16.
We are, thus, not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Dependent claims 3–6, 13, 14, and 19–21
Claims 3–6, 13, 14, and 19–21 depend respectively from one of
independent claims 1, 10, and 16, and we agree with the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions as well as the rebuttal to Appellant’s arguments for these
dependent claims, and adopt them as our own. See Non-Final Action 24–25;
Ans. 12–13, 15, 18.
Claims 9 and 18 over Yopp, Gazit, and Wimmer
Claims 9 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 16, respectively, reciting
that the steering wheel is displaced “to a horizontal position during the
autonomous vehicle driving condition.” We agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions as well as the rebuttal to Appellant’s arguments for
these dependent claims, and adopt them as our own. See Non-Final Action
10–12, 16–17, 21–23; Ans. 18–19.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3–6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 18–21.
Overall outcome:
Appeal 2020-003969
Application 14/813,709
9
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 10,
13, 14, 16,
19–21
103 Yopp, Gazit 1, 3–6, 10,
13, 14, 16,
19–21

9, 18 103 Yopp, Gazit, and
Wimmer
9, 18
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 9,
10, 13, 14,
16, 18–21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED