Ex Parte Bouni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2017

12819063 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2017)

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.
12/819,063 06/18/2010 Essam E. Bouni 081276-9426-US01 9196
34044 7590 07/14/2017
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
DANNEMAN, PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2017 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ESSAM E. BOUNI and JOACHIM SCHMIDT
Appeal 2016-0004551
Application 12/819,063
Technology Center 3600
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1—4,
6—11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20—25. We have jurisdiction to review the case
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to determining conditions of a seat
within a vehicle. Spec. 12.
1 The Appellants identify Robert Bosch LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000455
Application 12/819,063
Claim 1 is illustrative below:
1. A system for modifying the operation of one or more vehicle
safety systems, the system comprising:
an occupant classification module for providing an
occupant classification signal for an occupant disposed in a
vehicle seat, the vehicle seat including a seat base and a seat-back
pivotably secured to and projecting upwardly from the seat base,
the seat-back providing a back rest for the occupant;
a seat-back acceleration sensor disposed within the seat-
back of the vehicle seat, the seat-back being tiltable relative to
the seat base, the acceleration sensor configured to generate
acceleration signals indicative of a plurality of conditions of the
vehicle seat, including a seat-back tilt angle of the seat-back of
the vehicle seat;
a control module connected to the acceleration sensor, the
control module configured to receive the acceleration signals
from the acceleration sensor and determine the seat-back tilt
angle of the vehicle seat-back, and to receive the occupant
classification signal from the occupant classification module, the
control module generating a control signal based on the occupant
classification signal and the seat-back tilt angle of the seat-back
of the vehicle seat; and
a vehicle safety system connected to the control module,
the vehicle safety system configured to receive the control signal
and modify a safety parameter based on the control signal.
Claims 8—11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Claims 1, 2, 6—9, 13, 14, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable overNikolov (US 2002/0147535 Al, pub. Oct. 10,
2002) and Morinet et al. (US 2005/0200183 Al, pub. Sept. 15, 2005,
“Morinet”).
2
Appeal 2016-000455
Application 12/819,063
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nikolov, Morinet, and Xu et al. (US 7,451,033 B2, iss. Nov. 11, 2008,
“Xu”).
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nikolov, Morinet, and Prieto et al. (US 2006/0100761 Al, pub. May 11,
2006, “Prieto”).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nikolov, Morinet, and Saito et al. (US 2004/0138794 Al,
pub. July 15, 2004, “Saito”).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nikolov, Morinet, Norton (US 6,364,352 Bl, iss. Apr. 2,
2002) and Official Notice.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nikolov, Morinet, and Norton.
Claim 22 is rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Nikolov, Morinet, and Norton.
We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. ft112, First Paragraph
The Examiner established a rejection of claims 8—11, 13, 14, 16, 18,
and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to meet the
written description requirements. Final Act. 3^4.
The Appellants argue that the rejection “appears to have been
withdrawn in the Advisory Action mailed March 11, 2015, as there is no
mention of the rejection therein. Further, entry of the amendment to
3
Appeal 2016-000455
Application 12/819,063
paragraph [0028] adding language directed to the written description issue
was approved in a subsequent Interview Summary dated April 21, 2015.”
Appeal Br. 6.
Although we note that the Examiner says in the cited Interview
Summary “the Examiner notes that support for the amendment can be found
at least in original claims 6 and 13, and paragraph 27 of the Specification,”
we are unable to ascertain a definitive statement in the record that indicates
the rejection overall is withdrawn. “An appeal, when taken, is presumed to
be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by
an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.31(c) (2015). Because we are unable to ascertain definitively that the
Examiner has withdrawn the rejection, we must conclude the rejection is
pending.
As the Appellants do not advance argument relative to the rejection,
argument is waived. For this reason, we summarily sustain the rejection of
claims 8—11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 20—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for failing to meet the written description requirements.2
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that Nikolov fails
to disclose a sensor in a seat back because Nikolov instead discloses an
angle sensor at a pivot shaft with the seat back, and substituting Nikolov’s
sensor with the seat-back acceleration sensors of Morinet would also require
2 As the appeal is also sustained with respect to the rejection of the same
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Appellants and the Examiner will have
a further opportunity to clarify the record, should the Board’s understanding
be in error.
4
Appeal 2016-000455
Application 12/819,063
substituting a control unit to perform calculations, which is not a simple
substitution, and for which there is no motivation. Appeal Br. 10-12; see
also Reply Br. 2—3.
The Examiner finds that Morinet discloses seat-back-located
acceleration sensors coupled to a control unit to determine seat-back
position. Answer 5 (citing Morinet || 22—27 and Figs. 1 and 3).
Morinet first discloses acceleration sensors:
A first accelerometer 11 is attached to the backrest 1 and
a second accelerometer 12 is attached to one of the guide rails of
the seat pan. The first accelerometer delivers a signal
representative of the absolute inclination of the backrest in
relation to the vehicle and the second accelerometer delivers a
signal representative of the inclination of the slide and therefore
of the floor and of the vehicle as a whole.
Morinet 122. Morinet also discloses a control module, where the “signals
are fed to a comparator 17 which calculates the difference to deliver the
relative value 18 of the inclination of the backrest in relation to the floor.”
Id. 127. Morinet, thus, discloses the “seat-back acceleration sensor” and
“control unit... to determine the seat-back tilt angle,” as claimed.
The Examiner reasons that it would be obvious to substitute the sensor
and control unit from Morinet, for the tilt-angle sensor on the pivot in
Nikolov, because the general substitutability of sensors and control units is
well known, and because there is no indication that the substitution would
provide anything other than predictable results. Answer 5. In addition,
Morinet discloses a further motivation:
Some systems use potentiometric sensors placed at the
level of the hinges between the backrest and seat pan. These
systems can only give the inclination of the backrest in relation
to the seat pan and not in relation to the floor of the vehicle when
the inclination and/or height of the seat pan is itself adjustable,
5
Appeal 2016-000455
Application 12/819,063
because it is then difficult to measure the angle of the said seat
pan in relation to the floor.
Morinet | 6. Morinet, thus, provides the rationale to overcome the
shortcomings in the Nikolov approach to determining seat-back angle.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6, and 7, which were not
argued separately. Appeal Br. 12.
Rejection of Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the
combination of Nikolov and Morinet fails to disclose using sensed
acceleration signals for “determining the plurality of conditions of the
vehicle seat,” as recited in claim 8, because, according to the Appellants,
Morinet only determines seat-back angle and not a plurality of conditions of
the seat. Reply Br. 3^4; see also Appeal Br. 12—13.
Morinet discloses determination of seat-back angle relative to vertical,
the seat bottom, and the vehicle floor (Morinet || 11—15), which are a
plurality of conditions of the seat. Morinet further discloses sensing of
vibration, which is filtered out. Id. 125. The ordinary artisan would have
recognized that the act of removing vibrations via the filtering circuit
indicates that the vibration is available as a second determined condition of
the seat. Morinet, thus, discloses determining a plurality of conditions of the
seat, as claimed. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 8. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 9, 13, and 14 that
were not argued separately. Appeal Br. 13.
6
Appeal 2016-000455
Application 12/819,063
Rejection of Claims 20—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants essentially repeat the arguments at claim 1 and
claim 8, and apply them to independent claim 21, which has similar claim
language. Appeal Br. 13—14; see also Reply Br. 4—5. We determine the
arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons as at claims 1 and 8, above.
For this reason, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 21, as well as
of dependent claims 20 and 22, which are not argued separately.
Rejections of Dependent Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 23—25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants argue that these dependent claims rise or fall with
their respective independent claims, and therefore do not advance separate
argument for any of these claims. Appeal Br. 14. Because we sustain the
rejection of each independent claim, we also sustain the rejections of these
dependent claims.
DECISION
We summarily AFFIRM the rejection of claims 8—11, 13, 14, 16, 18,
and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1—4, 6—11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and
20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7