Ex Parte Gottwick et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 5, 2010

10556596 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 5, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT BOSCH GMBH
____________________

Appeal 2009-006138
Application 10/556,596
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: April 6, 2010
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, RICHARD TORCZON, and
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, Robert Bosch
GmbH (“Robert Bosch”), under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
Appeal 2009-006138
Application 10/556,596

2
claims 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

References Relied on by the Examiner
Campau et al. (“Campau”) 5,941,608 Aug. 24, 1999
Yoshino US 6,464,307 B1 Oct. 15, 2002

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campau and Yoshino.

The Invention
The invention relates to an electrohydraulic brake system. (Spec. 1: ¶
0002.) Claim 7 is representative and reproduced below (App. Br. 14 Claims
App’x.)1:
In an electrohydraulic brake system for a vehicle, the system
comprising:

a muscle-force-actuatable auxiliary brake including a master
cylinder and an actuating device for the master cylinder,

an external-force-actuatable service brake including an
electronic control unit and a pressure generator unit triggerable by the
control unit, the pressure generator unit including a drive and a
pressure source,

1 Claim 7 has been reproduced in a manner that complies with
37 C.F.R. § 1.75 (i) (“Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or
steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line
indentation.”)
Appeal 2009-006138
Application 10/556,596

3
an electronically triggerable valve assembly for switching the
brake system over from the service braking state to the auxiliary
braking state,

at least one hydraulic wheel brake,

at least one device for modulating the brake pressure at the
wheel brake, which modulating device is interposed between the valve
assembly for switching over the brake system and the at least one
wheel brake and being triggerable by the control unit, and

a piston/cylinder unit for simulating the pedal travel during the
service braking state, which in the auxiliary braking state is connected
to the master cylinder in a hydraulically blockable manner,

the improvement wherein a valve of said valve assembly for
switching over the brake system is interposed between the master
cylinder and the piston/cylinder unit such that a subjection of the
piston/cylinder unit to pressure medium is controlled by said valve,

and further comprising a pressure sensor disposed between the
valve of the valve assembly that controls the piston/cylinder unit and
the piston/cylinder unit.
B. ISSUE
Has Robert Bosch shown that the Examiner erred in determining that
the teachings of Yoshino provide a sufficient reason to modify Campau to
locate a pressure sensor between a piston/cylinder unit and its controlling
valve?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Yoshino discloses an automotive hydraulic pressure brake
system. (Yoshino Abstract.)
Appeal 2009-006138
Application 10/556,596

4
2. In Yoshino, on/off valve 3 is disclosed as operating to prevent
fluid flow from master cylinder 1 to wheel cylinders 2 within the brake
system. (Id. at 5:26-35.)
3. On/off valve 3 may also be opened to return fluid from the
wheel cylinders to the master cylinder. (Id. at 5:61-6:3.)
4. Stroke simulator 4 is a separate component from master
cylinder 1 and is located on a separate fluid line. (Id. at Fig. 1.)
5. Yoshino does not disclose that its valve 3 has any influence on,
or association with, the operation of stroke simulator 4.
6. Yoshino discloses a pressure sensor 13A located between valve
3 and master cylinder 1 operates to detect the master cylinder’s pressure.
(Id. at Fig. 1; 6:39-40.)
7. Campau discloses an electro-hydraulic brake system. (Campau
Abstract.)
8. In Campau, pressure sensor 30 is positioned within a flow line
16 that is connected to master cylinder 12 and senses pressure at the master
cylinder. (Id. at 5:21-25; Figs. 1 and 10.)
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To support an obviousness determination, there must be an articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
E. ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, and
26 as unpatentable over Campau and Yoshino. We focus on claim 7 as it is
the independent claim. The Examiner finds that Campau discloses an
Appeal 2009-006138
Application 10/556,596

5
electrohydraulic brake system having all the limitations of claim 7 including
the elements of a master cylinder and a piston/cylinder unit but lacks a
pressure sensor that is disposed between the piston/cylinder unit and a valve
assembly that “controls” the piston/cylinder unit. (Ans. 3:14-4:10.)
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Campau discloses a piston/cylinder unit
26a and a controlling valve 102a but lacks the feature of a pressure sensor
located between those two components. Id.
To make up for the lack of the required pressure sensor in Campau,
the Examiner turns to Yoshino as disclosing “an electrohydraulic brake
system having a pressure sensor 13A disposed between a valve 3 that
controls a piston/cylinder unit 4 and the piston/cylinder unit 4 itself.” (Ans.
4:11-13.) The Examiner contends that in view of Yoshino’s teachings it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to locate a
pressure sensor between Campau’s piston/cylinder unit 26a and its
controlling valve 102a. (Id. at 4:14-19.) By way of explanation for that
contention, the Examiner urges that Yoshino’s valve 3 corresponds to
Campau’s controlling valve 102a in controlling a piston/cylinder unit. In
particular, according to the Examiner (Ans. 6:11-15):
[V]alve 3 is broadly readable as controlling the piston/cylinder unit 4
of Yoshino at least in some sense. Yoshino describes valve 3 as an
on/off valve used to regulate brake pressure throughout the entire
brake system. Thus, it is broadly readable as controlling unit 4 in that
unit 4 forms part of the entire brake system.

Robert Bosch contests the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
Robert Bosch contends that the operation of Yoshino’s valve 3 is
independent of the operation of Yoshino’s “piston/cylinder unit 4” such that
the valve 3 does not “control” unit 4. (App. Br. 10:10-18; Reply Br. 2:17-
Appeal 2009-006138
Application 10/556,596

6
19.) Robert Bosch further contends that because Yoshino’s valve 3 is not a
valve controlling a piston/cylinder unit, the relationship between a pressure
sensor and valve 3 is insufficient to teach placing a pressure sensor between
Campau’s piston/control unit and its controlling valve 102a. (App. Br. 11:1-
5; Reply Br. 2:6-16.)
We do not agree with the Examiner’s reason for a conclusion of
obviousness. The Examiner does not point to any portion of Yoshino
substantiating her assertion that Yoshino’s valve 3 is “used to regulate brake
pressure throughout the entire brake system.” Yoshino’s on/off valve 3 is
disclosed as operating to prevent fluid flow from master cylinder 1 to wheel
cylinders 2 within a brake system. (Yoshino 5:26-35.) On/off valve 3 may
also be opened to return fluid from the wheel cylinders to the master
cylinder. (Id. at 5:61-6:3.) Thus, on/off valve 3 is disclosed as affecting
fluid flow only between master cylinder 1 and wheel cylinders 2. That is not
a disclosure that the on/off valve 3 regulates the “entire brake system.”
Stroke simulator 4, which the Examiner terms a pressure/cylinder unit, is a
separate component from master cylinder 1 and is located on a separate fluid
line. (Id. at Fig. 1.) The Examiner has not shown that Yoshino’s valve 3 has
any influence on the operation of stroke simulator 4.
To support an obviousness determination, there must be an articulated
reasoning with a rational underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. On
this record, the reasoning offered by the Examiner for combining the
teachings of Campau and Yoshino does not have a rational underpinning as
it is based on an unsubstantiated teaching in Yoshino of a control
relationship between valve 3 and stroke simulator 4.
Appeal 2009-006138
Application 10/556,596

7
The Examiner offers additional reasoning for combining the teachings
of Campau and Yoshino. According to the Examiner (Ans. 7:7-10):
Yoshino would provide the teaching of an effective means of
monitoring the pressure between a valve of a piston/cylinder unit and
the cylinder unit itself to ensure an adequate amount of fluid would
always be present in the piston/cylinder unit.

The Examiner does not point to any evidentiary support for that
determination. The only pressure sensor in Yoshino that the Examiner has
relied upon in support of her position is pressure sensor 13A. Yoshino’s
pressure sensor 13A is positioned within a flow line connected to master
cylinder 1 and simply operates to detect the pressure of master cylinder 1.
(Id. at Fig. 1; 6:39-40.) Campau already discloses a similar pressure sensor
30 positioned within a flow line 16 that is connected to master cylinder 12
and senses pressure at the master cylinder. (Campau 5:21-25; Figs. 1 and
10.) The Examiner does not meaningfully explain why a teaching in
Yoshino that corresponds to a teaching already present in Campau would
have resulted in modification of Campau’s system to include an additional
pressure sensor in another location.
We have reviewed only the Examiner’s stated reasons for combining
the teachings of Campau and Yoshino and conclude that they are inadequate
to explain why one with ordinary skill in the art would have sought to
implement a pressure sensor between Campau’s piston/cylinder unit 26a and
valve 102a.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable
over Campau and Yoshino.
Appeal 2009-006138
Application 10/556,596

8
Claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 26 are ultimately
dependent on, and include all the limitations of, claim 7. We also do not
sustain the rejection of those claims over Campau and Yoshino.
F. CONCLUSION
Robert Bosch has shown that the Examiner erred in determining that
the teachings of Yoshino provide a sufficient reason to modify Campau to
locate a pressure sensor between a piston/cylinder unit and its controlling
valve.
G. ORDER
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campau and Yoshino.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-006138
Application 10/556,596

9
RONALD E. GREIGG
GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C.
1423 POWHATAN STREET, UNIT ONE
ALEXANDRIA VA 22314