Ex Parte Lauffer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

13602368 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 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.
13/602,368 09/04/2012 Scott J. Lauffer 83244574 6425
28395 7590 06/14/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER EVANS, GARRETT F
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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 SCOTT J. LAUFFER, DALE SCOTT CROMBEZ,
and ANDY CHUAN HSIA
Appeal 2016-004495
Application 13/602,368
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, all the pending claims in the
present application. See Claim Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to controlling a brake system
in a vehicle. See Abstract.
Appeal 2016-004495
Application 13/602,368
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for controlling a brake system in a
vehicle comprising:
braking the vehicle using a first brake pedal map
allowing a first maximum non-friction braking torque to be
reached when the vehicle has a first load; and
braking the vehicle using a second brake pedal
map allowing a second maximum non-friction braking torque
lower than the first maximum non-friction braking torque to be
reached when the vehicle has a second load lower than the first
load.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:1
Rl. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Amanuma (US 2004/0238244 Al, Dec. 2, 2004); and
R2. Claim 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Amanuma, Stumpe (US 5,938,295, Aug. 17, 1999), Kushi
(US 6,089,679, July 18, 2000), and Bohm (US 6,457,784 Bl, Oct. 1, 2002).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102(b)
Claims 1, 10, and 16
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Amanuma discloses a
first load and a second load lower than the first load, as set forth in claim 1 ?
1 The rejection of claims 16—20, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is withdrawn by the Examiner (see Ans. 3).
2
Appeal 2016-004495
Application 13/602,368
Appellants contend “that there is nothing associated with the various
braking distributions of Figure 11 of the Amanuma et al reference—which is
. . . associated with different loads . . . The Examiner merely makes a
statement that the vehicle has a weight applied to the front wheels and a
weight applied to rear wheels” (App. Br. 9).
In response, the Examiner finds that “[t]he weight applied to either of
the front or rear wheels is a load . . . [and] Amanuma teaches [that] each load
changes from an initial load when the vehicle is on a down slope,” thus
Amanuma teaches a first load and a second load (Ans. 3^4; see also Final
Act. 5—6).
Although Appellants emphasize that the Examiner’s finding regarding
Amanuma’s load changes on a down slope “is not the same” as expressly
claimed in claim 1 (see Reply Br. 1—2), Appellants fail to provide any
meaningful analysis that explains why the Examiner erred. Appellants
merely direct our attention to Amanuma’s Figure 11 and assert that there is
nothing associated with different loads illustrated therein. However,
Appellants fail to specifically rebut the Examiner’s interpretation of
Amanuma’s Figure 11 and the disclosure thereof, i.e., changing loads in the
front and rear wheels in a down slope road condition. See Final Act. 5—6;
Ans. 3^4 (citing Amanuma’s | 63). We are therefore constrained by the
record before us to find that Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 10 and 16 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1. See App. Br.
3
Appeal 2016-004495
Application 13/602,368
8—10. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and
16.
Rejection under § 103(a)
Claims 1—20
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Amanuma, Stumpe, Kushi, and Bohm teach or suggest a first load and a
second load lower than the first load, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend that “[t]he Examiner has not established how any
of the references use different brake pedal maps . . . associated with different
vehicle loads . . . [and] was unclear as to what Amanuma et al. actually
taught with regard to vehicle loads” (App. Br. 11). Appellants further
contend that Stumpe “actually teaches away from the claimed invention,
which addresses non-friction braking” (id.); Kushi’s teachings are not even
part of claim 1; and Bohm merely teaches an equivalence “between torque
and force” (id.).
In large part, Appellants’ aforementioned contentions amount to
attacking the references individually. However, one cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the
collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
4
Appeal 2016-004495
Application 13/602,368
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”) (citations
omitted). This reasoning is applicable here because the Examiner is relying
on the combined teachings of the cited art to teach or suggest braking using
brake pedal maps when the vehicle has different loads.
For example, the Examiner finds that Amanuma, as modified by
Stumpe, Kushi, and Bohm, teaches or suggests the claimed invention (see
Final Act. 7—13). Specifically, the Examiner finds that while Amanuma
discloses most of the claimed limitations, “Amanuma does not explicitly
teach details relating to conditions that the vehicle has a first load OR a
second load as opposed to a first load AND a second load” (id. at 9), and
instead imports Stumpe’s teachings of different loads, i.e., “LOADED
VEHICLE” and “EMPTY VEHICLE” (see id. 9-10, citing Stumpe 3:7-65);
Kushi’s teachings of a specific vehicle loading condition, i.e., “FULL­
LOAD” and “MINIMUM-LOAD” (see id. 11-12, citing Kushi Fig. 1); and
Bohm’s teachings of braking torque/braking force (see id. at 13, citing 2:21—
28; 5:31—35, Figs. 2 and 4). Appellants fail to rebut how Amanuma, as
modified by the aforementioned teachings of Stumpe, Kushi, and Bohm,
teaches or suggest a first/second brake pedal map . . . when the vehicle has a
first/second load, as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Appellants’ teaching away argument supra, we note that
Appellants do not establish that Stumpe criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the use of different loads for a non-friction braking torque.
“[T]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
constitute a teaching away from any of these alternative because such
5
Appeal 2016-004495
Application 13/602,368
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed ...” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Even if Stumpe illustrates friction brakes in Figure 2a, as proffered by
Appellants (see App. Br. 10), Appellants have not shown that such a
disclosure criticizes, discredits, or discourages using different loads for the
alternative non-friction braking.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 10 and 16 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants
do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. See App. Br.
10—13. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) and § 103(a) rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6