Ex Parte Khan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2017

13906742 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 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.
13/906,742 05/31/2013 Adil Khan 83365367 1330
28395 7590 09/07/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER AUNG, SAN M
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADIL KHAN, STEVEN OTIS PATE,
PETER FRANCIS WORREL, and CLEMENT NEWMAN SAGAN
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,7421
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THU A. DANG, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—7 and 11—22, which constitute all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Ford Global Technologies, LLC.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,742
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to braking systems. Abstract; Spec. Tflf 1—4.
Claim 1,14, and 20, set forth below, are exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added):
1. A braking system in a hybrid vehicle, comprising:
a brake pedal;
a master cylinder having a proximal end and a distal end
of a fluid chamber, the master cylinder further having a first
outlet, a second outlet between the first outlet and the distal end,
and a piston disposed therein and translatable from the proximal
end toward the distal end in response to brake pedal
displacement;
a brake fluid reservoir;
a first fluid circuit connecting the first outlet of the master
cylinder to the brake fluid reservoir, and
a second fluid circuit connecting the second outlet of the
master cylinder to wheel brakes and supplying brake fluid from
the master cylinder to the wheel brakes in response to the piston
being translated a length greater than a distance between the
proximal end and the first outlet;
wherein initial brake pedal displacement translates the
piston between the proximal end and the first outlet and transfers
brake fluid from the master cylinder to the fluid reservoir in the
first fluid circuit to inhibit hydraulic braking during regenerative
braking, and wherein brake fluid is inhibited from transferring
from the master cylinder to the fluid reservoir in response to the
piston translating past the first outlet to enable hydraulic
braking.
14. A hybrid vehicle comprising:
a brake pedal;
a master cylinder mechanically coupled to the brake
pedal and having a piston therein, a first fluid circuit that
2
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,742
selectively diverts hydraulic fluid from being supplied to vehicle
brakes in response to an initial displacement of the piston, and
a second fluid circuit that delivers hydraulic fluid to the vehicle
brakes in response to displacement of the piston beyond a fixed
initial displacement distance.
20. A vehicle comprising:
a master cylinder having a chamber with a piston slidably
disposed therein and biased toward a proximal end, the chamber
defining a first opening fluidly coupling the chamber to a fluid
reservoir and located a distance from the proximal end, and a
second opening fluidly coupling the chamber to hydraulic-
brakes;
wherein fluid is inhibited from transferring through the
first opening in response to the piston moving the distance from
the proximal end.
App. Br. \-A (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 11, 14, and 19—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as being anticipated by Matsuno et al. (US 2005/0162009 Al; pub. July 28,
2005) (“Matsuno”). Non Final Act. 3—5.
Claims 1—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matsuno and Jeon (US 2011/0115281 Al; pub. May 19,
2011). Non-Final Act. 5—10.
Claims 12, 13, and 15—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Matsuno. Non-Final Act. 10—13.
3
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,742
ANALYSIS
The §102 Rejections
Regarding independent claim 14, Appellants argue:
Matsuno does not teach or disclose Appellant's particular timing
of diverting fluid based on the movement of the piston. Instead,
Matsuno broadly states that opening and closing of valves can be
“coordinated.” There is no delivery of hydraulic fluid to the
wheel brakes when a piston physically displaces beyond a "fixed
distance" as claimed. Nothing in Matsuno teaches supplying the
hydraulic fluid to the vehicle's brakes when the piston moves to
a particular location, let alone when the piston moves beyond a
“fixed initial displacement distance” as claimed.
App. Br. 13.
Appellants further argue, because claim 14 is not anticipated by
Matsuno, dependent claims 15—19 are not anticipated, nor rendered obvious
by Matsuno. Id.
The Examiner finds:
Matsuno discloses brake pedal movement via pedal simulator to control
the brake pressure. Matsuno discloses “the first cylinder body 16 is
equipped with a rear output port 77 which outputs hydraulic pressure
of the rear output hydraulic chamber 28 whose pressure is increased
along with forward movement of the rear master piston 26, and with a
front output port 78 which outputs hydraulic pressure of the front output
hydraulic chamber 29 whose pressure is increased along with forward
movement of the front master piston 27 (Paragraph 42). These [sic] all
movement is control by the brake pedal and pedal simulator. Matsuno
further discloses movement of the brake pedal in braking and non­
braking condition (Paragraphs 22—23, and 106—107).
Ans. 8.
In Reply, Appellants argue Matsuno, paragraph 42, “describes the use
of two output ports (port 77 and 78), with two different pistons (rear master
4
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,742
piston and front master piston 27)” and “[t]here remains a lack of disclosure
of selectively diverting fluid based on the distance traveled by either one of
these two pistons.” Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue Matsuno does not
disclose “a single piston that (1) diverts fluid during an initial displacement,
and (2) delivers the hydraulic fluid to the brakes when displaced beyond a
fixed distance.” Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Although the Examiner
identifies Matsuno features that may relate to the claim limitations, the
Examiner presents insufficient factual findings that Matsuno describes the
relationships of these elements as recited in the claim and argued by
Appellants. In particular, the Examiner does not map Matsuno ports,
pistons, and piston movement to the claim limitations. Thus, on the record
before us, the Examiner presents insufficient evidence as required for
anticipation. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set
forth in the claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a
single prior art reference, and arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal
Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14, and
dependent claim 19,
Regarding independent claim 20, Appellants argue the claim requires,
inter alia, that the “fluid is inhibited from transferring through the first
opening in response to the piston moving the distance from the proximal end
[to the first opening.]” and “[s]ince the fluid is inhibited from traveling back
to the fluid reservoir, the fluid can travel to the frictional brakes.” App. Br.
14 (citing Spec, distance LI in Fig. 2). Appellants argue the anticipation
rejection is improper because Matsuno does not teach when to inhibit the
5
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,742
fluid from flowing into any reservoir and teaches only that various valves
can be “coordinated.” Appellants assert Matsuno’s “coordinated” “provides
no specific teaching or disclosure of inhibiting the fluid from flowing into
the reservoir in response to the piston moving a certain distance.'1'’ Id.
Appellants argue dependent claims 11 and 21 (which both depend from
claim 20) are also not anticipated by Matsuno. Id.
The Examiner finds:
Matsuno discloses “the normally closed pressure-reducing linear
solenoid valve 105 for regeneration and coordination is
interposed between the booster hydraulic pressure chamber 25
and reservoir 40”. Matsuno also showed in figure 1 that master
cylinder and reservoir connected via port 39 and 61 and master
cylinder connected with wheel brake cylinder via port 77 and 78.
Therefore, when fluid supply to master cylinder to wheel
cylinder ports 61 and 39 must be close to get flow fluid from the
master cylinder to wheel cylinder via associate valves. The
return fluid is only can flow from ports 77 and 78 to 39 and 61
than reservoir.
Ans. 9.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because, similar to our
discussion of claim 14, supra, the Examiner presents insufficient evidence to
meet the requirements for anticipation. In particular, the evidence does not
provide sufficient mapping of the structure and function of Matsuno
elements to the claim limitations. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of
Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20, and
dependent claims 11,21 and 22.
6
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,742
The §103 Rejections over Matsuno
Regarding dependent claims 15—19, Appellants argue dependency
from independent claim 14, discussed supra. Regarding dependent claim
15, Appellants additionally argue Matsuno does not teach “a controller
programmed to apply a regenerative braking force to vehicle wheels while
the piston has translated a distance less than the fixed initial displacement
distance.” App. Br. 13—14. Appellants also argue Matsuno does not teach
regenerative braking and is concerned only with hydraulic braking. Id.
Regarding dependent claims 12 and 13, which depend from claim 11,
discussed supra, Appellants present no separate arguments. As discussed
supra, we find Matsuno does not anticipate claim 11 and we note the
Examiner provides no additional evidence that claim 11 is obvious,
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12, 13,
and 15—19.
The §103 Rejections over Matsuno and Jeon
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Matsuno and Jeon teaches the claim 1 limitation:
wherein initial brake pedal displacement translates the
piston between the proximal end and the first outlet and transfers
brake fluid from the master cylinder to the fluid reservoir in the
first fluid circuit to inhibit hydraulic braking during regenerative
braking, and wherein brake fluid is inhibited from transferring
from the master cylinder to the fluid reservoir in response to the
7
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,742
vision translating vast the first outlet to enable hydraulic
braking.
App. Br. 7—12; Reply Br. 2.
Appellants argue Matsuno is directed solely to hydraulic braking
(including a hydraulic booster) with no teaching of regenerative braking.
App. Br. 8—9. According to Appellants, the term “regenerating” used in
Matsuno describes adding more pressurized fluid for hydraulic braking; not
for regenerative braking. Id. at 8 (citing Matsuno 1 57; Spec. 22 describing
regenerative braking). Appellants further argue, because Matsuno is purely
hydraulic braking, no matter how modified, it teaches no structure that can
“inhibit hydraulic braking during regenerative braking.'1'’ Id. at 9.
Regarding the disputed claim 1 limitation, Appellants argue the
Examiner relies on Jeon but Jeon by itself or in combination with Matsuno
does not teach the disputed limitation. App. Br. 9-11. Appellants argue
Jeon teaches a bypass line (“Supply”) which allows fluid to return to the
fluid reservoir 40 without hydraulic braking. Id. (citing Jeon 134; Fig. 1).
Appellants argue Jeon teaches only one outlet (“Exhaust”) that feeds fluid to
both the brake and bypass line and not “transferring fluid to the brake via
one outlet in the master cylinder and back to the reservoir in another outlet
[in the master cylinder].” Id. at 10-11. Appellants argue “Jeon does not
teach or disclose “brake fluid is inhibited from transferring from the master
cylinder to the fluid reservoir in response to the piston translating past the
first outlet to enable hydraulic braking’ '’ and “Jeon does not inhibit fluid
8
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,742
from passing into any outlet in response to the piston translating past that
outlet.” Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds:
Matsuno discloses all the structural elements of the claim 1, and only
silent about “transfers brake fluid from master cylinder to the fluid
reservoir to inhibit hydraulic braking during regenerative braking”.
This is operational procedure and Jeon discloses this limitation. (Jeon
discloses during the regenerative braking cooperation control to bypass
the brake fluid supplied to the brake cylinder 71 to the reservoir tank
40, and increase the regenerative braking torque amount, Paragraphs
34-35).
Again, regenerative braking system are always combined with
hydraulic braking system. Regenerative braking system cannot be
installed in the vehicle without hydraulic brake system as they are not
capable of completely stopping the vehicle. When operate the brake
system there are three types of operation, first hydraulic braking system
only, regenerative braking system only or combination of both.
Matsuno also showed in figure 1 that master cylinder and reservoir
connected via port 39 and 61 and master cylinder connected with wheel
brake cylinder via port 77 and 78. Therefore, when fluid is supplied
from master cylinder to wheel cylinder, ports 61 and 39 must be closed
to get flow fluid from the master cylinder to wheel cylinder via
associate valves. The return fluid is only can flow from ports 77 and
78 to 39 and 61 than reservoir. Therefore, Matsuno invention can
operative combination of regenerative system. Therefore, the examiner
teaches (Jeon] operation procedure to Matsuo to include the operation
procedure in which transfers brake fluid from master cylinder to the
fluid reservoir to inhibit hydraulic braking during regenerative braking.
Ans. 4—5.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because the Examiner
presents insufficient findings as required for obviousness. In particular,
9
Appeal 2017-001344
Application 13/906,742
the Examiner provides insufficient evidence that Matsuno teaches the
structure and relationships of claim 1 and Jeon does not cure this deficiency.
Moreover, Jeon’s general teaching of coordinating fluid flow between brake
and regeneration is insufficient to cure the deficiency. As stated by the
Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection must be based on
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSRInt’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
dependent claims 2—7. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (“[Djependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from
which they depend are nonobvious . . . .”). Because our decision with regard
to the disputed limitation is dispositive of the rejection of these claims, we
do not address additional arguments raised by Appellants.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 11—22.
REVERSED
10