Ex Parte Hamaguchi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 19, 201411777401 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YOUJI HAMAGUCHI, KOU SATOU, and YASUHISA HAYAKAWA ____________________ Appeal 2012-002203 Application 11/777,401 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before GAY ANN SPAHN, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-002203 Application 11/777,401 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-8. An oral hearing was held on February 18, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.1 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a lane departure prevention system (Spec., para. [0002]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A lane departure prevention system comprising: a lane departure tendency detection section configured to detect a degree of a lane departure tendency of a host vehicle exhibiting a tendency of departing from its driving lane; a yaw moment calculating section configured to calculate a base yaw moment to be applied to the host vehicle based on the degree of the lane departure tendency determined by the lane departure tendency detection section; and a yaw moment control section configured to apply the base yaw moment calculated by the yaw moment calculating section to the host vehicle while the base yaw moment is calculated as being equal to or larger than a first prescribed minimum yaw moment, the first prescribed minimum yaw moment being greater than zero, and the yaw moment control section being further configured to apply the first prescribed minimum yaw moment to the host vehicle if the base yaw moment is smaller than the first prescribed minimum yaw moment. 1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 24, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 20, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 17, 2011). Appeal 2012-002203 Application 11/777,401 3 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2004/0215393 A1, pub. Oct. 28, 2004) and Takeda (US 7,206,684 B2, iss. Apr. 17, 2007). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Takeda, and Shimizu (US 5,925,082, iss. Jul. 20, 1999). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, and 5 We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Matsumoto nor Takeda, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests apply[ing] the base yaw moment calculated by the yaw moment calculating section to the host vehicle while the base yaw moment is . . . equal to or larger than a first prescribed minimum yaw moment. . . [and] apply[ing] the first prescribed minimum yaw moment to the host vehicle if the base yaw moment is smaller than the first prescribed minimum yaw moment, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11-20 and Reply Br. 2-4). The Examiner directs our attention to paragraphs [0075] through [0077] of Matsumoto as teaching this feature (Ans. 4-7 and 9-10). However, we can find nothing in the cited portions of Matsumoto that discloses or suggests that a first prescribed minimum yaw moment is applied to the host vehicle if the base yaw moment is smaller than the first prescribed minimum yaw moment, as called for in claim 1. Appeal 2012-002203 Application 11/777,401 4 Matsumoto discloses an automotive lane deviation prevention apparatus including a control unit electronically connected to a yawing- motion control actuator, such as braking force actuators or a steering actuator, for lane deviation prevention and vehicle yawing motion control purposes (Matsumoto, Abstract). Matsumoto describes that the system detects the degree of departure from the driving lane and arithmetically calculates a desired yaw moment, Ms, “when there is an increased tendency for the host vehicle to deviate from the driving lane or when the host vehicle is running on the driving-lane leftmost edge or on the driving-lane rightmost edge” (Matsumoto, para. [0066]; see also Matsumoto, fig. 2). Otherwise, Ms is set to zero. Id. Matsumoto further describes at paragraphs [0075] through [0077], cited by the Examiner, that when an increased tendency for lane deviation is detected, the system calculates desired front and rear wheel-brake cylinder pressures based on the magnitude of the desired yaw moment. Specifically, Matsumoto describes that if the absolute value of Ms is less than a predetermined yaw-moment threshold value, Ms1, the wheel-brake cylinder pressures are determined based on an expression (6) in paragraph [0075]. Conversely, if the absolute value of Ms is greater than or equal to threshold value Ms1, the wheel-brake cylinder pressures are determined based on expressions (7) and (8), set forth in paragraph [0077]. The Examiner asserts that applying differential wheel-brake cylinder pressures, determined based on expression (6), i.e., when the absolute value of Ms is less than threshold value Ms1, corresponds to “apply[ing] the first prescribed minimum yaw moment to the host vehicle if the base yaw moment is smaller than the first prescribed minimum yaw moment,” as Appeal 2012-002203 Application 11/777,401 5 recited in claim 1 (Ans. 10-11). The Examiner maintains that this is so because “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would know that a yaw moment can be applied by adjusting the differential pressures” and further because “calculating the braking pressures is how the applicant is applying the desired yaw moment” (Ans. 10). Appellants acknowledge that “calculating the braking pressures is how the desired yaw moment is applied, and that the present application also applies the braking forces to obtain the desired yaw moment” (Reply Br. 4). However, Appellants observe that even if a yaw moment can be produced by adjusting braking pressures, Matsumoto does not disclose or suggest producing threshold value Ms1 by adjusting braking pressures (Id.). We agree. Matsumoto discloses in paragraphs [0075] through [0077] that Ms1 is used as a reference point for determining which of expression (6) or expressions (7) and (8) should be used to calculate the differential pressures necessary to produce the desired yaw moment Ms. We can find nothing in the cited portions of Matsumoto that discloses or suggests that the braking pressures are calculated, using expression (6), to produce threshold value Ms1 as the “desired” yaw moment, i.e., that Matsumoto “appl[ies] the first prescribed minimum yaw moment to the host vehicle if the base yaw moment is smaller than the first prescribed minimum yaw moment,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner introduces Takeda “as a further clarification” (Ans. 7), and cites column 10, line 50 through column 11, line 15 of Takeda as teaching the argued limitation (Ans. 7 and 13-15). However, we agree with Appellants that although Takeda teaches that the magnitude of the calculated Appeal 2012-002203 Application 11/777,401 6 yaw moment may vary depending on the degree of departure of the host vehicle from the driving lane, there is nothing in the cited portion of Takeda that discloses or suggests that a predetermined minimum yaw moment is applied to the host vehicle if the calculated yaw moment is less than the predetermined minimum value (Reply Br. 5-7). Instead, Takeda merely describes that when a subtraction value (indicative of the degree of departure of the vehicle from the lane) is not greater than first and second control threshold values, the lane-departure prevention control is performed by applying the calculated yaw moment (see Takeda, col. 8, ll. 35-40) to the vehicle by steering the rear wheels; otherwise the lane-departure prevention control is performed by applying the yaw moment to the vehicle by steering the rear wheels and applying braking power to the front wheel on the departure avoidance side (see Takeda, col. 10, ll. 50-65). In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5, which depend from claim 1. Independent claims 7 and 8 Claims 7 and 8 include language substantially similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8 for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Dependent claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1. The Examiner has not established on this record that Shimizu cures the deficiencies of Matsumoto and Takeda, as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Appeal 2012-002203 Application 11/777,401 7 Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 for the same reasons as set forth with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation