Ex Parte Kappes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

14197323 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/197,323 03/05/2014
117396 7590 06/25/2018
FG1L/Burgess Law Office, PLLC
P.O. Box 214320
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefan Kappes
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.
83407005 2539
EXAMINER
KLEINMAN, LAIL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEP AN KAPPES, FLORIAN SCHWETER, and
MARKUS JUNG
Appeal2017-009344
Application 14/197 ,323
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Osborn et al. (US 2007/0185639 Al, pub. Aug. 9, 2007, hereinafter
"Osborn"). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Technologies, LLC, which is identified as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009344
Application 14/197 ,323
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Some motor vehicles are equipped with both an emergency braking
system, which applies "a specific braking force to reduce the speed of the
vehicle upon determining a risk of a possible collision," and an electronic
stability control system for controlling vehicle dynamics. Spec. i-fi-1 5---6.
Appellant's invention "relates to a method for controlling [the] emergency
braking system" of such a motor vehicle in a manner to keep the emergency
braking system active, even if the electronic stability control system is
initially deactivated or active in a reduced mode. Id. i-fi-13, 9. To reduce the
risk of an irregular vehicle state due to operations of the emergency braking
system, Appellant's invention automatically switches the stability control
system "to an active state, at least temporarily, for the duration of the
emergency braking system intervention." Id. i-fi-16, 9.
Claims 1, 7, and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for controlling an emergency braking system of a
motor vehicle having a stability control system comprising the
steps of:
determining whether the stability control system is in a
deactivated or in a reduced state;
maintaining the emergency braking system active even if
the stability control system is deactivated or in a reduced state;
determining a hazardous situation;
generating an emergency braking command and initiating
emergency braking; and
temporarily activating the stability control system if said
emergency braking command is generated.
2
Appeal2017-009344
Application 14/197 ,323
DISCUSSION
In finding that Osborn anticipates the subject matter of claims 1, 7,
and 10, the Examiner cites paragraph 16 of Osborn as satisfying the step of
determining whether the stability control system is in a deactivated or
reduced state. Final Act. 4 (explaining that "[v] ehicle stability control
functions are automatically implemented, i.e., by default not active"). The
Examiner explains further that "[ u ]nder the broadest reasonable
interpretation, Osborn discloses a deactivated or reduced state in that the
vehicle control systems disclosed by Osborn are by default not active, i.e.[,]
not operating, or deactivated or reduced." Id. at 3. According to the
Examiner, the secondary operations of Osborn's stability control system
(i.e., braking control unit 12) "are vehicle stability control functions," and, if
these "secondary operations are not currently being carried out then the
brake control is in a 'reduced state' given the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term." Id. (citing Osborn i-f 16). In other words,
the Examiner construes "deactivated or in a reduced state" as not currently
carrying out a control function, such as braking or vehicle stability control
functions, but set to automatically implement such functions when
conditions warrant such implementation.
Appellant takes issue with the Examiner's construction of
"deactivated or in a reduced state." Appeal Br. 6. Appellant points out that,
using the Examiner's construction of these terms, the term "'active' means
the braking functions are operating." Id. Thus, Appellant submits, applying
the Examiner's construction, the step of "maintaining the emergency braking
system active even if the stability control system is deactivated or in a
reduced state" recited in claims 1, 7, and 10 "would constantly implement or
3
Appeal2017-009344
Application 14/197 ,323
apply ABS braking." Id. Appellant contends that a person having ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that this is not what Appellant discloses, and,
thus, entails an improper construction of "deactivated or in a reduced state"
and of "active." Id. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner's finding regarding the step of determining whether the
stability control system is deactivated or in a reduced state is predicated on
an improper construction of "deactivated or in a reduced state."
Appellant's Specification explains that the emergency braking system
"[i]nitiating an automatic speed reduction" presents a risk "that the vehicle
will enter an irregular vehicle state; i.e., over or under steering," and that
"[ n ]ormally the electronic stability control system is available to compensate
for any irregular vehicle state." Spec. i-f 6. Appellant's Specification
discloses that, in prior art systems, "[ w ]here the driver has deactivated the
electronic stability control or switched it to reduced mode, deactivation or
switching to a reduced mode of the emergency braking system occurs to
avoid a possible unstable vehicle state," and that "[ u ]ntil activation of the
electronic stability control, the emergency braking system remains
unavailable." Id. i-f 7.
If Appellant's Specification were using the language "deactivated or
in a reduced state" in accordance with the Examiner's construction, then
deactivating the electronic stability control system, or switching it to a
reduced state, would not necessitate switching the emergency braking
system to a deactivated or reduced state/mode to avoid a possible unstable
vehicle state. The vehicle stability control system would implement the
vehicle stability control functions necessary to avoid a possible unstable
state caused by emergency braking. Thus, the Examiner's construction of
4
Appeal2017-009344
Application 14/197 ,323
"deactivated or in a reduced state" is not consistent with Appellant's
Specification and, therefore, is improper.
Consistent with Appellant's Specification, the proper construction of
"deactivated or in a reduced state" is a state in which the system is switched
completely off so as to be unavailable (i.e., it is not monitoring and will not
perform any control even if normal triggering conditions are presented) or
switched into a state in which some functions are unavailable (i.e., the
system is not monitoring and will not perform particular control functions
even if normal triggering conditions are presented). In order to be "active"
(not in a deactivated or reduced state), the stability control system need not
be currently providing any braking or other stability control functions; it just
needs to be available to do so when necessary, and monitoring to determine
when or if it needs to do so.
The Examiner does not articulate any finding that Osborn discloses
any capability of switching the stability control system (i.e., braking control
unit 12) to a deactivated or reduced state, as properly construed, much less a
finding that Osborn determines whether braking unit 12 has been switched to
a deactivated or reduced state, as properly construed. Instead, the
Examiner's finding that Osborn discloses the step of determining whether
the stability control system is "deactivated or in a reduced state" is
predicated on an improper construction of "deactivated or in a reduced
state."
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Osborn anticipates the subject matter of
independent claims 1, 7, and 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
5
Appeal2017-009344
Application 14/197 ,323
rejection of claims 1, 7, and 10, ortheirdependentclaims2---6, 8, 9, 11, and
12, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Osborn.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 is reversed.
REVERSED
6