VOLVO TRUCK CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 20202020001697 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/557,145 09/11/2017 Hamid YHR 000019-050 2487 51707 7590 10/29/2020 WRB-IP LLP 801 N. Pitt Street Suite 123 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER KAZIMI, MAHMOUD M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2020 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): HARRY@WRB-IP.COM USPTO@dockettrak.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HAMID YHR Appeal 2020-001697 Application 15/557,145 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). An oral hearing was held on October 15, 2020. We REVERSE. 1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “the inventor or all of the joint inventors”). “The real party in interest is the assignee, Volvo Truck Corporation.” (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2020-001697 Application 15/557,145 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE “The present invention relates to an arrangement and a method for providing redundancy in a vehicle electrical control system, in which I/O units connected to an electronic control unit may be selectively reconnected to any other electronic control unit in case of malfunction of the electronic control unit.” (Substitute Specification ¶ 1.) Illustrative Claim l. An arrangement for providing redundancy in a vehicle electrical control system, comprising: - at least a first and a second electrical control unit, connected to each other through a first data bus, wherein the first electronic control unit is arranged to perform a functionality A and the second control unit is arranged to perform a functionality B, the functionality A being different from the functionality B, - at least a first and a second transceiver each connected to one or more I/O units through a separate second data bus, and - a programmable switch arranged between the electronic control units and the transceivers and configured to selectively interconnect the first and the second electronic control unit with the first and the second transceiver, wherein the programmable switch is initialized to interconnect the first and the second electronic control unit with the first and the second transceiver, respectively, thereby allowing communication between an electronic control unit and an I/O-unit, wherein a further selective reconnection provided by the programmable switch is controlled by the first and the second electronic control unit based on a fault status of each of the first and the second electronic control unit and the ability of the second electronic control unit to perform a functionality previously provided by a presently defective first electronic control unit, the first electronic control unit is arranged to store program code corresponding to a reduced portion of functionality B and the second control unit is arranged to store Appeal 2020-001697 Application 15/557,145 3 program code corresponding to a reduced portion of functionality A, and wherein the fault status of each of the first and the second electronic control unit is based on a control signal received from each of the first and the second electronic control unit, wherein a missing control signal from the first electronic control unit is indicative of a faulty first electronic control unit and used by the programmable switch for interconnecting the first transceiver to the second electronic control unit, the second electronic control unit is arranged to also perform at least a selected portion of the functionality A previously provided by the first electronic control unit by activating, depending on from which electronic control unit the control signal is missing, the program code stored by the second control unit corresponding to the reduced: portion of functionality A. References Armbruster US 2006/0116803 A1 June 1, 2006 Bechtler US 2011/0066321 A1 March 17, 2011 Ricci US 2013/0204493 A1 August 8, 2013 Jones US 2015/0346724 A1 December 3, 2015 Naoi US 2017/0220035 A1 August 3, 2017 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1–8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Armbruster, Bechtler, Ricci, and Naoi. (Final Action 3.) The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Armbruster, Bechtler, Ricci, Naoi, and Jones. (Final Action 12–13.) The Examiner rejects claims 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Armbruster, Bechtler, and Ricci. (Final Action 14.) ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 sets forth “[a]n arrangement for providing redundancy in a vehicle electrical control system,” and independent claim 11 Appeal 2020-001697 Application 15/557,145 4 sets forth “[a] method for providing redundancy in a vehicle electrical control system.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The rest of the claims on appeal depend from, or otherwise incorporate the limitations of, claims 1 and 11. (See id.) The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are premised upon the applied art collectively teaching an arrangement/method possessing all of the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 11. (See Final Action 3, 14.) The Appellant argues that this premise is not adequately by the record. (See Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 2–4.) We are persuaded by the Appellant’s position. The claimed arrangement comprises, and the claimed method involves, a “first electronic control unit” (a first ECU) and a “second electronic control unit” (a second ECU). (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Armbruster teaches a redundant vehicle control system comprising a plurality of ECUs. (See Final Action 4, 14.) Armbruster discloses three ECUs (i.e., “control devices”) which “are of redundant configuration.” (Armbruster ¶ 24.) Armbruster explains that “[a] system which is of redundant configuration is a system in which a component, for example a microprocessor, is provided multiply and the same function is carried out,” which means that “the same input data is processed by the components and the same output data is produced.” (Id. ¶ 2.) Thus, in Armbruster, the three ECUs are each arranged to perform the same functionality (i.e., produce the same output for the same input), and, this same functionality can be considered “functionality A.” Appeal 2020-001697 Application 15/557,145 5 Independent claims 1 and 11 require the second ECU to be arranged to “store program code corresponding to a reduced portion of functionality A,” and to “perform at least a selected portion of the functionality A previously provided by the first electronic control unit.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Ricci teaches “the principle that redundant electronic control units can store a reduced function of electronic control units,” and the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Armbruster to incorporate this principle. (Final Action 8.) Ricci discloses that three ECUs (“processing modules”) may be located in a vehicle to “provide redundancy in the event of a collision or other catastrophic event.” (Ricci ¶ 116.) One of these three ECUs (e.g., the first ECU) “may act as the default processing module for the vehicle” with the remaining ECUs (e.g., the second and third ECUs) being “only needed for redundancy.” (Id. ¶ 129.) Ricci teaches that the redundant ECUs may “only have limited capabilities,” and that this arrangement reduces cost/space when compared to an arrangement in which all three ECUs have “full capacities.” (Id.) Thus, when Armbruster is modified in view of Ricci, Armbruster’s first ECU is programmed to fully perform functionality A, and Armbruster’s second ECU is programmed to perform a reduced portion of functionality A. Independent claims 1 and 11 further require the first ECU to be “arranged to store program code corresponding to a reduced portion of functionality B.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In Armbruster (as disclosed and as modified in view of Ricci), the first ECU would only be programmed to fully perform functionality A. Neither Armbruster nor Ricci seems to Appeal 2020-001697 Application 15/557,145 6 suggest programming the first ECU to perform something other than functionality A, much less a reduced portion of another functionality B. The Examiner finds that Naoi teaches that separate ECUs can be “adapted [to] perform their own functionality and each functionality may be different from the other.” (Final Action 6.) And the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to modify the invention of Armbruster and include the feature of a first electronic control unit is adapted to perform a functionality A and the second control unit is adapted to perform a functionality B.” (Id.) Thus, when Armbruster is modified in view of Naoi as proposed by the Examiner, it would seem that Armbruster’s first ECU would be adapted to perform functionality A, and Armbruster’s second ECU would be adapted to perform functionality B. But the Examiner does not explain how or why this proposed modification would result in Armbruster’s first ECU being adapted to perform something other than functionality A, much less a reduced portion of the second ECU’s functionality B. The Examiner also does not explain why, if Armbruster’s second ECU is adapted to perform functionality B, the applied art collectively teaches that Armbruster’s second ECU would also be programmed to perform a reduced portion of functionality A. The Examiner’s further findings and determinations with respect to the other secondary references likewise fail to explain how the prior art collectively teaches a first ECU “arranged to store program code corresponding to a reduced portion of functionality B” and a second ECU “arranged to store program code corresponding to a reduced portion of functionality A.” Bechtler is relied upon to teach that “a missing control signal is indicative of a faulty condition” (Final Action 6, 16) and Jones is Appeal 2020-001697 Application 15/557,145 7 relied upon to teach “a programmable switch” (id. at 13). Neither Bechtler nor Jones is relied upon to teach the programming of ECUs in a certain manner to provide redundancy in a vehicle electrical control system. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–13. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 10 103 Armbruster, Bechtler, Ricci, Naoi 1–8, 10 9 103 Armbruster, Bechtler, Ricci, Naoi, Jones 9 11–13 103 Armbruster, Bechtler, Ricci 11–13 Overall Outcome 1–13 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation