VOLVO TRUCK CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2020

2020001697 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
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