Ex Parte Klier

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 2, 2017

13838175 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
13/838,175 03/15/2013 Willy J. Klier 081276-9452-US01 5073
34044 7590 10/04/2017
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
CASS, JEAN PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2017 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLY J. KLIER
CApplicant: ROBERT BOSCH GMBH)
Appeal 2016-005308
Application 13/838,1751
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Robert Bosch LLC as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-005308
Application 13/838,175
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to controlling
vehicle steering. (Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for controlling vehicle steering, the method
comprising:
determining a target yaw rate and a target side-slip angle
for a vehicle;
determining an initial vehicle actuator setting based on
operator input;
applying a non-linear vehicle model to calculate a
compensated vehicle actuator setting based on the initial vehicle
actuator setting, an actual yaw rate of the vehicle, and an actual
side-slip angle of the vehicle,
wherein the actual side-slip angle of the vehicle is
detected by a side-slip angle sensor; and
controlling a vehicle actuator based on the compensated
vehicle actuator setting to cause the actual yaw rate to approach
the target yaw rate and to cause the actual side-slip angle to
approach the target side-slip angle.
We note that “side-slip angle” is the angle between the direction in which a
vehicle is travelling and the direction in which the vehicle wheels are
pointing, caused, for example, by deformation of the tire treads while the
vehicle is experiencing lateral force. (App. Br. 9.)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious in view of Pischinger (DEI02004008045 Al, pub.
Sep. 8, 2005), Nutsch (EP1889775 A2, pub. Feb. 20, 2008), Dominke et al.
2
Appeal 2016-005308
Application 13/838,175
(US 6,640,923 Bl, issued Nov. 4, 2003), andNishio et al. (US 6,456,920
Bl, issued Sep. 24, 2002). (Final Act. 4—8, 10-15.)
The Examiner rejected claims 7—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Pischinger, Nutsch, Dominke, Nishio, and Turner et al.
(US 8,296,107 B2, issued Oct. 23, 2012). (Final Act. 8-10.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Pischinger,
Nutsch, Dominke, and Nishio teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitation, “wherein the actual side-slip angle of the vehicle is detected by a
side-slip angle sensor,” and the commensurate limitations recited in
independent claims 11 and 12. (App. Br. 7.)
ANALYSIS
For the requirement of the actual side-slip angle detected by a side­
slip angle sensor, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Nishio of
estimating the slide-slip angle based on measurements of lateral
acceleration, yaw rate, and vehicle speed. (Final Act. 4; Nishio Fig. 1, col.
2,11. 42—57.) Appellant argues estimating side-slip angle based on
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 21, 2015) (herein, “App.
Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 25, 2016) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final
Office Action (mailed May 21, 2015) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed Mar. 25, 2016) (herein, “Ans.”) for the
respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-005308
Application 13/838,175
measurements of other variables does not teach the required “side-slip angle
sensor.” (App. Br. 7.) The Examiner responds that Nishio nonetheless
teaches or suggests this limitation, based on the disclosure in Nishio of a
Japanese patent publication that proposes a detector for side-slip angle, and
based on the provision in Appellant’s specification for embodiments that do
not use a side-slip sensor. (Ans. 5—10; Nishio col. 1,11. 40-47; Spec. 119.)
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. The “detector” of the Japanese
patent publication, as described in Nishio, is another instance of estimating
side-slip angle, not involving a side-slip angle sensor. The fact that the
Specification provides for alternatives that do not use a side-slip sensor has
no relevance to the claimed subject matter, which requires such a sensor.
We are unable to find any support in the record for the Examiner’s finding
that “a ‘side slip angle sensor’ ... is a substitution of a known element to
obtain a predictable result.” (Ans. 6.) Accordingly, we are constrained by
the record to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1,11,
and 12.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of independent claims 1,11, and 12 over Pischinger, Nutsch,
Dominke, and Nishio. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 2—6 over Pischinger, Nutsch, Dominke, and Nishio, and of claims 7—
10 over Pischinger, Nutsch, Dominke, Nishio, and Turner.
4
Appeal 2016-005308
Application 13/838,175
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—12.
REVERSED
5