Ex Parte Mueller-Lerwe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2016

13011963 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/011,963 01124/2011 Armin Mueller-Lerwe
28866 7590 10/20/2016
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
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.
83160234 5827
EXAMINER
WALLACE, DONALD JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2016 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@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARMIN MUELLER-LERWE, URS CHRISTEN,
RAINER BUSCH, THOMAS RAMBOW,
UWE GUSSEN, and MARKUS KEES
Appeal2014-009918
Application 13/011,963 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 5-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "Ford Global
Technologies LLC, the assignee of record, which is a subsidiary of Ford
Motor Company." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009918
Application 13/011,963
BACKGROl.J1'-JD
According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates to a method
and a device for controlling the operation of an internal combustion engine
in a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle being equipped with a stop-start device
and with an adaptive cruise control system." Spec. i-f 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 5-7 are on appeal. Claim 1 is the only independent
claim on appeal and recites:
1. A device for controlling the operation of an internal
combustion engine in a motor vehicle, comprising:
a brake pedal operatively engaging a first brake cylinder, the first
brake cylinder actuatable by the brake pedal;
an adaptive cruise control device for regulating a vehicle speed
as a function of environmental information captured in a sensor-
based manner, a second brake cylinder being actuatable by the
adaptive cruise control device;
a brake line extending between the first and second brake
cylinders and a brake, the first and second brake cylinders
configured to be actuatable to affect a brake line pressure;
a sensor for measuring the brake line pressure in the brake line,
the sensor located along the brake line to measure brake line
pressure between the brake and the first and second brake
cylinders;
a stop-start device for automatically switching off and starting
the internal combustion engine; and
wherein the stop-start device and the adaptive cruise control
device are coupled to one another in that the automatic
switching-off and starting of the internal combustion engine is
executed via the stop-start device directly as a function of the
brake line pressure measured by the sensor independently of a
brake pedal actuation by a driver.
Appeal Br. 11.
2
Appeal2014-009918
Application 13/011,963
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moriya2 in view of Hattwig. 3
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Moriya teaches a
device for controlling the operation of an internal combustion engines,
including all elements of the claim, except that Mori ya discloses measuring
brake pressure in the master cylinder rather than using a sensor located in the
line between the brakes and the first and second brake cylinders. Final Act.
3 (citing Moriya, Fig. 1; col. 10, 1. 58---col. 11, 1. 9; col. 12, 11. 2-8; col. 13, 11.
1-5, 21-25). With respect to this limitation, the Examiner finds that
Moriya's device would inherently include a sensor for measuring brake
pressure in the master cylinder and that "Hattwig teaches a brake system that
includes a pressure sensor (11, Figure 1; col. 11, line 67 to col. 12, line 5)
located along the brake line to measure brake line pressure between the
brakes (13, 14) and the brake cylinder (4)." Id. The Examiner concludes,
It would have been obvious . . . to incorporate the teaching of
Hattwig into the system of Mariya as a simple substitution of one
known element (the line-mounted sensor ofHattwig) for another
(the master cylinder pressure sensor of Mariya) with the
predictable result that either provides a reading to a control
circuit of the state of operation of the brakes, and specifically a
reading of the pressure in the brake line.
Id. at 3--4.
2 Moriya, US 7,354,379 B2, iss. Apr. 8, 2008.
3 Hattwig, US 4,418,966, iss. Dec. 6, 1983.
3
Appeal2014-009918
Application 13/011,963
We agree with the Examiner's findings regarding the scope and
content of the prior art with respect to claim 1. See id. at 3-5. As discussed
below, we are unpersuaded of error by Appellants' arguments.
First, Appellants argue that Moriya does not teach a sensor for
measuring brake line pressure as claimed because Moriya discloses only
measuring pressure in the master cylinder. Appeal Br. 4--5. Appellants
assert that measuring brake fluid pressure in the master cylinder is not the
same as measuring line pressure as claimed. We are not persuaded of error
by this argument. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejection is based on the combinations of
reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The rejection
here, relies on Hattwig, and not Moriya, as disclosing a sensor for measuring
brake line pressure in the brake line. Further, we agree that placing a sensor
in the brake line to measure brake pressure, as opposed to measuring
pressure in the master cylinder, would yield predictable results, as the
Examiner concludes. See Final Act. 3--4.
Second, Appellants argue that Moriya "does not teach ACC and stop-
start controlling engine switch-off independent of brake pedal actuation."
Appeal Br. 5. However, we agree with the Examiner that Moriya teaches a
mode of operation in which starting or stopping the vehicle is not based on
whether the brake is depressed. For example, Moriya discloses a number of
stop conditions including a measurement of the inner pressure of the master
cylinder and brake pedal depression, and Moriya discloses a mode of
operation, as outlined in Figure 4, in which the vehicle is automatically
stopped when "All Engine Stop Conditions except Depression of Brake are
Satisfied." Moriya, Fig. 4; see also id. at col. 10, 1. 58---col. 11, 1. 9. Moriya
4
Appeal2014-009918
Application 13/011,963
discloses a similar mode of operation with respect to automatically starting
the vehicle. Id. at Fig. 5. Thus, we are not persuaded of any error in the
Examiner's finding that Moriya discloses automatic starting and stopping
based on a brake pressure measured by a sensor independently of brake
pedal actuation. To the extent Appellants' argument is based on Moriya's
disclosure of only measuring master cylinder pressure (see Appeal Br. 5), as
discussed one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejection relies on Hattwig's disclosure that
brake pressure may be measured by a sensor along the brake line rather than
in the master cylinder.
Next, Appellants argue that Hattwig "does not teach what the
[E]xaminer is implying that it teaches relative to claim 1." Appeal Br. 6.
Appellants correctly state that "Hattwig . . . is cited for teaching 'a brake
system that includes a pressure sensor ... located along the brake line to
measure brake line pressure between the brakes ... and the brake cylinder."
Id. However, Appellant's do not expressly indicate what the Examiner "is
implying" with this finding. Appellants do assert that Hattwig includes only
one brake cylinder; determines the brake pressure based only on brake pedal
position; and measures a different pressure than that of claim 1. Id. at 6---7.
Appellants conclude:
The line mounted sensor of Hattwig is not mounted along the
brake line to measure brake line pressure between the brake and
the first and second brake cylinders, and it does not measure the
same pressure as such a sensor because the system of Hattwig
has multiple valves that affect this pressure measurement.
Id. at 7. We are not persuaded of error by this argument. Again, as
discussed above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually. The rejection relies on Moriya, and not Hattwig, for teaching a
5
Appeal2014-009918
Application 13/011,963
system including a brake line extending between a brake and first and
second brake cylinders, and the Examiner relies on Hattwig only for the
teaching that is was known to measure pressure with a sensor along the
brake line between the brake and the brake cylinder. See Ans. 5. We agree
with the Examiner that Hattwig teaches it was known to include a pressure
sensor along a brake line to measure the pressure in the line. See Hattwig,
col. 12, 11. 2-5. The fact that Hattwig teaches measuring brake line pressure
in a system with only one brake cylinder and multiple valves that effect the
pressure does not persuade us otherwise. Further, we note that the rejection
is not based on the bodily incorporation ofHattwig's system into Moriya's
apparatus, i.e., the proposed combination does not rely on the specific sensor
used in Hattwig. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Appellants also argue that the proposed combination would defeat a
purpose of Mori ya. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants assert that a purpose of
Moriya is to "take[] action specifically based on the brake pedal actuation"
and "[t]he operations cited by the [E]xaminer (col. 10, lines 58-66, and col.
12 lines 2-8) depend on knowing the brake is depressed based on the
pressure sensed in the master cylinder (both processes specifically recite the
brake pedal being in a particular position)." Id. We disagree. As discussed
above, Moriya discloses automatic starting and stopping that is independent
of brake pedal depression. Further, we note that Mori ya discloses a brake
pedal position sensor 77 that indicates the position of the brake pedal
irrespective of the measurement of the brake fluid pressure in the master
cylinder, and thus, knowing the pressure in the master cylinder is not
necessarily required to know whether the brake is depressed. See Moriya,
col. 10, 11. 31-34; Fig. 1. For these reasons, we find that Appellants have not
6
Appeal2014-009918
Application 13/011,963
sufficiently shown that moving the sensor as proposed by the Examiner
would not be "compatible with the method taught in the sections of Mori ya
cited by the [E]xaminer." Appeal Br. 8.
Finally, Appellants argue that there is no reason to move the sensor of
Moriya "as this will sometimes produce the wrong pressure measurement
needed in the operation of Moriya." Reply Br. 3--4. We are not persuaded
by this argument at least because it is a statement unsupported by evidence.
Further, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
the relationship between the pressure in the master cylinder and the brake
line in Moriya, and thus, we agree with the Examiner that modifying Moriya
to place a pressure sensor in the brake line, as opposed to the master
cylinder, would yield predictable results, i.e., a predictable measure of the
pressure in the brake line for use in determining stop and start conditions.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious
over Mori ya in view of Hattwig.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein the stop-start
device is configured so as to execute an automatic switching-off of the
internal combustion engine only if the brake line pressure measured by the
sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold value." Appeal Br. 12. The
Examiner finds that Moriya teaches this limitation. Final Act. 4. Appellants
argue that Moriya discloses a stop condition in which the master cylinder
pressure is not higher than a preset reference level, and thus, Moriya teaches
the opposite of what is claimed. Appeal Br. 8-9. We are not persuaded of
error. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized this as a drafting error in Moriya. Final Act. 4.
7
Appeal2014-009918
Application 13/011,963
In addition to the explanation provided by the Examiner (see Ans. 6), we
note that Moriya teaches automatic engine restart conditions that require that
the brake pedal is released and the pressure in the master cylinder "is lower
than a preset reference level," thus indicating that the opposite would be
required as a stop condition. Moriya, col. 12, 11. 2-8. For these reasons, we
sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 7
Claims 6 and 7 depend from claims 5 and 1, respectively, and further
recite "wherein the stop-start device is configured so as to perform an
automatic start of the internal combustion engine if the brake line pressure
measured by the sensor is below a predetermined threshold value." Appeal
Br. 12. Appellants argue only that these claims are not obvious because
"Moriya does not measure such a brake line pressure, so it would not operate
based on such a brake line pressure being below such a second value." Id.
at 9. We find that this line of reasoning fails to identify any error in the
rejection of claims 6 and 7 for the same reasons identified above with
respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 6 and 7.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1
and 5-7.
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
8