Ex Parte Hawes et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2019

15161502 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/161,502 05/23/2016 Kevin J. Hawes
22851 7590 05/01/2019
Aptiv Technologies Limited
P.O. Box 5052
MIC 483-400-502
Troy, MI 48007-5052
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DP-322603 1763
EXAMINER
SOOD, ANSHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2019 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):
kandace.k.powell@aptiv.com
patent@aptiv.com
michele. m. piscitelli @apti v .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN J. HA WES, EHSAN SAMIEI, and
MICHAEL I. CHIA
Appeal2018-007861
Application 15/161,502
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kevin J. Hawes et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-18, 20, and 21. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Delphi Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-007861
Application 15/161,502
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to a lane keeping system for an
autonomous vehicle in wind conditions. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 11, and 18 are
independent. Claims 1 and 11, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A lane keeping system for a vehicle comprising:
a pressure sensor configured to generate a signal indicative
of a pressure;
a safety restraint system (SRS) controller in
communication with the pressure sensor, the SRS controller
configured to determine a collision event in response to the signal
and activate a safety restraint component in response to the
determined collision event; and
a lane keeping system (LKS) controller in communication
with the pressure sensor, the LKS controller configured to
determine a lateral wind force on the vehicle in response to the
signal, the LKS controller configured to determine a correction
in response to the determined lateral wind force to maintain the
vehicle along a desired path.
11. A lane keeping system for a vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body having a first door panel on one side of the
vehicle body and a second door panel on another side of the
vehicle body;
first and second absolute pressure sensors configured to
respectively generate first and second signals indicative of first
and second pressures, the first absolute pressure sensor located
in the first door panel and the second absolute pressure sensor
located in the second door panel; and
a lane keeping system (LKS) controller in communication
with the first and second absolute pressure sensors, the LKS
controller configured to determine a lateral wind force on the
vehicle in response to a difference between the first and second
signals, the LKS controller configured to determine a correction
in response to the determined lateral wind force to maintain the
vehicle along a desired path.
2
Appeal2018-007861
Application 15/161,502
REJECTIONS
I. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.
II. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
III. Claims 1---6, 8, 11-14, 16, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jacobi (US 5,379,218, iss. Jan. 3, 1995)
and Feinstein (US 2014/0054880 Al, pub. Feb. 27, 2014).
IV. Claims 7, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Jacobi, Feinstein, and Larish et al. (A New Predictive
Lateral Load Transfer Ratio for Rollover Prevention Systems, 62 IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, 2928-36 (Sept. 2013))
("Larish").
V. Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Jacobi, Feinstein, and Yang (US 9,132,835 B2, iss. Sept.
15, 2015).
VI. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Jacobi, Feinstein, and Melen (US 2017/001017 4 Al, iss. Jan. 12, 201 7).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I; Written Description
In rejecting claim 21 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement, the Examiner finds that the Specification does not disclose that
"the SRS controller is configured to respond to pressure signals greater than
about 15 kPa and the LKS controller is configured to respond to pressure
signals less than about 15 kPa." Final Act. 5.
3
Appeal2018-007861
Application 15/161,502
Appellants argue that the claimed limitations are disclosed in
paragraphs 37 to 41 of their Specification. Appeal Br. 4.
In response, the Examiner states that, although paragraph 3 7 discloses
one example with a pressure rise of about 15 kPa, this disclosure "does not
provide support that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at
the time of filing." Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not adequately
established possession of the claimed invention. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). "[T]here cannot be a
reduction to practice of the invention ... without a physical embodiment
which includes all limitations of the claim." UMC Elecs. Co. v. U.S., 816
F.2d 647, 652 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Appellants' Specification discloses that a
collision event activates the safety restraint components (SRS controller)
based on "a typical pressure rise ... [ ofJ about 15 kPa in 8ms," whereas
abuse events that are not intended to activate the safety restraint components
( airbag deployment) "are less than 5 kPa." Spec. ,r 3 7. Although
Appellants' disclosure of "about 15 kPa" provides written support for when
the SRS controller responds, this same value of 15 kPa was not directed to,
and does not support, any range of LKS controller response. Rather, the
Specification discloses that the LKS controller responds to "a sensed
pressure increase of about 0.02 kPa, which is well within the range of abuse
event levels," of "less than 5 kPa." Spec. ,r,r 37 and 40. Given that the
Specification explicitly discloses that the LKS controller operates within the
abuse event level of less than 5 kPa, Appellants have not explained how the
Specification supports a contention that Appellants were in possession of an
LKS controller configured to respond to pressure signals above 5 kPa, much
4
Appeal2018-007861
Application 15/161,502
less between about 5 kPa and 15 kPa. Because Appellants' Specification
provides insufficient disclosure to allow one skilled in the art to recognize
that the inventor had possession of an LKS controller configured to respond
to pressure signals for the broader scope of less than about 15 kPa, as called
for by claim 21, we find that the claim fails to comply with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Rejection II; Definiteness
The Examiner finds that "[t]he term 'about' is not defined by the
claim," and "the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining
the requisite degree," such that "one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention." Final Act. 5. According
to the Examiner, it is, therefore, "unclear what range of pressure values
constitutes 'about 15 kPa, "' rendering claim 21 indefinite. Id.
Appellants argue that "use of 'about' does not automatically render a
term indefinite. One skilled in the art would understand the boundaries of
the claim when read in light of the specification." Appeal Br. 5.
Although we appreciate that the term "about" is a term of degree,
terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite if the specification provides
some standard for measuring that degree. See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera
Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v.
Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818,826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here,
the Examiner has not established that a skilled artisan could not determine
the parameters of "about 15 kPa." We do not agree that use of the term
"about," without providing an explicit standard for ascertaining the requisite
5
Appeal2018-007861
Application 15/161,502
degree, necessarily renders a claim indefinite. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 21 as indefinite.
Rejection III; Obviousness Based on Jacobi and Feinstein
Claims 1-6, 8, and 21
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a pressure sensor with both a safety
restraint system (SRS) controller and a lane keeping system (LKS) controller
in communication with the pressure sensor.
The Examiner finds that Jacobi discloses, inter alia, a pressure sensor
22 and a LKS controller 15 in communication with the pressure sensor.
Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Jacobi does not teach a SRS controller
in communication with the pressure sensor, but that Feinstein teaches a
safety component (considered by the Examiner to be a SRS controller) that
detects a collision using side pressure sensors. Final Act. 7. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the system of Jacobi to
include Feinstein's safety components, as "a simple addition of known
functionality to the system of Jacobi that would yield predictable results and
still allow the system of Jacobi to function as intended." Id.
Appellants argue that nothing in the references suggests a single
pressure sensor in communication with both a safety restraint system (SRS)
and a lane keeping system (LKS). Appeal Br. 5. Appellants assert that,
because there are significant differences between wind pressure and the
pressure in a vehicle collision, there is no suggestion that "the wind sensors
of Jacobi could also be utilized to determine a collision." Id. Appellants
contend that the Examiner's proposal, to use the same pressure sensor for
detecting a crash and for detecting lateral wind force, is necessarily based on
6
Appeal2018-007861
Application 15/161,502
"impermissible hindsight reconstruction." Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br.
2.
In response, the Examiner notes that, because Jacobi teaches wind
sensing for lane keeping using sensed side pressure, and because Feinstein
teaches a safety restraint system using sensed side pressure, "one of ordinary
skill in the art can see that side pressure sensors can be used for detecting
both wind and a collision." Ans. 5. According to the Examiner,
impermissible hindsight is not used because "the teachings and motivation to
combine the systems of Jacobi and Feinstein are clear from the two
references alone to one of ordinary skill in the art." Id.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Although both Jacobi and
Feinstein use pressure sensors to perform their respective functions, the
Examiner does not explain adequately how or why one of ordinary skill
would use the same pressure sensor to perform both functions. Our
reviewing court has stated that omission of an element and retention of its
function is an indicia of non-obviousness. In re Edge, 359 F.2d 896, 899
(CCP A 1966). Here, Appellants perform the function of lane keeping and
the function of safety restraint activation using the same sensor, whereas
these functions were previously performed with two different sensors. The
Examiner's proposed modification of Jacobi with Feinstein omits a sensor
but keeps its function. Yet, the Examiner does not explain how or why
Jacobi's pressure sensors would continue to perform their functions as
intended, and thus fails to overcome the indicia of non-obviousness.
Specifically lacking is an explanation of how and why one skilled in the art
would make the necessary modifications to Jacobi's pressure sensor so that
the resulting system (1) activates to correct the steering when the wind
7
Appeal2018-007861
Application 15/161,502
blows, while preventing inappropriate activation of the safety device, and (2)
activates safety devices in a collision. For these reasons, we are persuaded
by Appellants' argument that the Examiner's conclusion regarding
obviousness is in error. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim
1. Claims 2---6, 8, and 21 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and we,
therefore, do not sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons.
Claims 11-14, 16, and 18
Independent claims 11 and 18 both recite, inter alia, first and second
absolute pressure sensors.
The Examiner finds that Jacobi's pressure measuring points 18 and 19
are ( or act as) first and second absolute sensors, because Jacobi's differential
pressure sensor 22 uses an absolute pressure measurement to determine
differential pressure. Final Act. 9 and 11; see also Ans. 8.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Jacobi teaches away from using
absolute pressure sensors. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Jacobi 2:32-34).
While we do not agree that Jacobi teaches away from using absolute
pressure sensors, we find that the Examiner has not established that Jacobi
discloses absolute pressure sensors. Jacobi discloses that "[p]ressure
measuring points 18 and 19 are designed as bores 20 and 21. A differential
pressure sensor 22, which detects the differential pressure Dp between both
pressure measuring points 18, 19, is arranged centrally between the
measuring points and is connected with them by means of hoses or pipes."
Jacobi 3:59-64 (emphasis omitted). As such, Jacobi discloses a single
differential sensor 22, which has two inputs, pressure measuring points 18
and 19. The Examiner has not established that a differential pressure sensor
8
Appeal2018-007861
Application 15/161,502
is an absolute pressure sensor. Further, the Examiner does not rely on
Feinstein as disclosing first and second absolute pressure sensors, or contend
that they would have been obvious over Jacobi's single differential pressure
sensor. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
11-14, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because the Examiner's finding
is not supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Rejections IV-VI
Claims 7, 9, 10, 15, 1 7, and 2 0 depend from one of claims 1, 11, and
18. The Examiner does not rely on Larish, Yang, and Melen to cure the
deficiencies discussed above regarding the rejections of independent claims
1, 11, and 18. We, therefore, do not sustain Rejections IV-VI.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
112(b) as being indefinite.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9