Ex Parte Pietron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13800513 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
13/800,513 03/13/2013 Gregory Michael Pietron 83335920 8684
28395 7590 11/17/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER WILTEY, NICHOLAS K
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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 GREGORY MICHAEL PIETRON, LAWRENCE M. ROSE,
JASON MEYER, and KEREM BAYAR
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
Technology Center 3600
Before SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gregory Michael Pietron et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18 in this
application. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is an applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46. The Appeal Brief identifies the same company as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claims 1 and 16 illustrate the
claims on appeal:
1. A vehicle comprising:
a differential;
shafts;
first and second wheels mechanically coupled to the
differential via the shafts; and
a brake system configured to, based on a difference
between a target speed and an actual speed of the first wheel
individually being greater than a predetermined threshold during
braking of the wheels, (i) reduce a commanded braking capacity
on the first wheel individually to increase the actual speed of the
first wheel individually and (ii) reduce a commanded linear rate
of increase in braking capacity on the second wheel individually
to reduce skidding associated with the wheels.
16. A method of braking a vehicle comprising:
commanding an increase in brake pressure at a first wheel
individually; and
reducing a rate of the increase in brake pressure at the first
wheel individually based on a difference between a target speed
and an actual speed of a second wheel individually being greater
than a predetermined threshold.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1,4. To help clarity our analysis below, we note
claims 1 and 16 reverse the respective roles of the “first” and “second”
wheels. That is, it is the first wheel of claim 1 and the second wheel of
claim 16 that is monitored to determine a difference between a target wheel
speed and an actual wheel speed. Similarly, it is the brake of the second
wheel of claim 1 and the brake of the first wheel of claim 16 that has a
pressure rate increase being reduced.
2
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. Non-Final Act. 3.
Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Naito (US 5,952,564, iss. Sept. 14, 1999). Non-Final Act. 3.
Claims 1—3, 9—11, 13, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakaura (US 5,563,793, iss. Oct. 8, 1996),
Naito, and Tozu (US 5,752,752, iss. May 19, 1998).3 Non-Final Act. 4—8,
10-12.
Claims 4—6, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nakaura, Naito, Tozu, and Butler (US 2008/0015766 Al,
pub. Jan. 17, 2008). Non-Final Act. 8—9.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nakaura, Naito, Tozu, and Hosaka (US 2009/0096279 Al,
pub. Apr. 16, 2009). Non-Final Act. 9-10, 12.
ANALYSIS
A. §112 Indefiniteness (Claims 2 and 3)
The Examiner determines the term “generally” in claims 2 and 3 “is
broad and indefinite,” and therefore rejects those claims. Non-Final Act. 3.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for lack of enablement. See Non-Final Act. 2 (rejection);
Ans. 2 (withdrawal).
3 The statement of this rejection (Non-Final Act. 4) includes claim 15, but
the underlying analysis (id. at 4—8) does not address claim 15 or its direct
parent claim 14. Instead, the Examiner relies on Butler as disclosing the
limitation of claim 14. Id. at 8—9. We, therefore, do not include claim 15 as
being subject to the rejection over Nakaura, Naito, and Tozu.
3
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
Appellants do not address this rejection. See Appeal Br. passim & Reply Br.
passim. We, therefore, summarily sustain the rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Baxter Inti, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (argument waived when not timely presented in briefing to the Board,
absent exceptional circumstances); MPEP § 1215.03 (9th Ed., Rev. 07.2015,
Nov. 2015) (“An appellant may, of course, choose not to present arguments
or rely upon particular evidence as to certain claim rejections; however, such
arguments and evidence are waived for purposes of the appeal and the Board
may summarily sustain any grounds of rejections not argued.”).
B. §102 Anticipation by Naito (Claims 16—18)
The Examiner finds Naito anticipates the subject matter recited in
claim 16. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 4—5. Appellants object, inter alia, on the
basis that Naito does not disclose altering the brake pressure applied at a first
wheel based on a difference between a target speed and an actual speed of a
second (i.e., different) wheel, as required by claim 16. Appeal Br. 8—11;
Reply Br. 2—3. For the following reasons, we agree with Appellants.
The Examiner pertinently relies on the brake control scheme
illustrated in Naito’s Figure 8. See Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Naito, 15:25—
37, 16:20—33). That figure is reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
FIG. 8
Figure 8 illustrates an “ordinary anti-lock brake control” scheme. Naito,
15:61—16:2, Fig. 6 (step S7). The bottom curve in Figure 8 illustrates how a
controller modulates the brake pressure applied at a first wheel based on the
interplay between three different variables — the top three curves in
Figure 8 — over time. Id. at 16:2—38. Thus, the three input variables for
controlling the brake pressure applied to the first wheel are the acceleration
of the first wheel, the speed of the first wheel, and the estimated speed of the
vehicle. Id.', see also id. at Fig. 3, 12:13—25, 15:1—30 (each wheel la—Id has
an associated wheel speed sensor 2a—2d for determining the velocity Vw and
acceleration Gw of each wheel individually); id. at Figs. 3—4, 13:18-41
(controller 11 controls braking of each wheel la—Id individually via separate
actuators 10a—lOd, each incorporating valves 12, 13 operated by the
controller).
5
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
The Examiner takes the position that the speed of a second wheel
affects the brake pressure applied to the first wheel, as required by claim 16,
because the estimated vehicle speed in Figure 8 is derived from the speed of
a second wheel. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Naito, 15:25—37, 16:24—33);
Ans. 4. Indeed, it does appear that the estimated vehicle speed in Figure 8
may very well be, in some manner, derived from the wheel speed(s) of one
or more wheels other than the first wheel whose brake is being controlled.
See Naito, 15:31—37. It also appears Naito discloses reducing a rate of brake
pressure increase applied to the first wheel, from a “steep []” rate of increase
between time t3 and time t4 (id. at 16:20-23), to a “progressive[] or
gentl[e]” rate of increase after time t4 (id. at 16:24—33).
However, claim 16 requires that the rate of brake pressure increase
applied to the first wheel is “based on a difference between a target speed
and an actual speed of a second wheel.” Appeal Br., Claims App. 4
(emphasis added). To the extent the transition at time t4 depends on a
difference between a target speed and an actual speed, it is that the transition
occurs when the wheel speed of the first wheel “approaches” the estimated
vehicle speed (which, as discussed above, may be derived from the wheel
speed of a second wheel). Id. at 16:24, Fig. 8. Claim 16, by contrast,
specifies the target speed and the actual speed both refer to the speed of the
same wheel — the second wheel — which is a different wheel from the first
wheel whose brake is being controlled. Thus, the transition at time t4 in
Naito’s Figure 8 is not determined based on the speed difference specifically
recited in claim 16.
The Answer additionally relies on Naito’s disclosure that “[w]hen the
wheel acceleration Gw increases beyond a preset acceleration value a3, a
6
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
hydraulic pressure increasing command is issued” at time t3. Naito, 16:20—
25 (emphasis added); Ans. 5. We agree with Appellants that the transition at
time t3 is based on wheel acceleration, which is different from the claimed
wheel speed. Reply Br. 3; Naito, 16:20-25, Fig. 8. We appreciate the
Examiner’s finding that “wheel acceleration is the derivative of the wheel
speed.” Ans. 5; see also Naito, 15:1—26 (wheel acceleration Gw is
calculated by monitoring wheel speed Vw over time). Nonetheless, the two
variables may behave differently under the same conditions, which is
illustrated in Naito’s Figure 8 itself. Moreover, the wheel acceleration curve
in Naito’s Figure 8 corresponds to the acceleration of the first wheel whose
brake is being controlled, not an acceleration (and therefore speed) of a
different second wheel as recited in claim 16. See Naito, 16:1—13.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s finding that Naito
anticipates claim 16 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Examiner’s additional consideration of how Naito anticipates dependent
claims 17 and 18 does not cure the noted deficiency as to claim 16. See
Non-Final Act. 3. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claims 16—
18 as anticipated by Naito.
C. §103 Obviousness over Nakaura, Naito, and Tozu
(Claims 1—3, 9—11, 13, and 16—18)
In appealing this obviousness rejection, Appellants argue for the
patentability of claims 1—3, 9—11, 13, and 16—18 as a group, without
separately arguing any one claim apart from the others. Appeal Br. 13—14.
We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative to decide the rejection of
these claims as having been obvious over Nakaura, Naito, and Tozu, with
7
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
the other claims standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds Nakaura discloses first and second wheels
coupled to a differential via shafts. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner also
finds Nakaura discloses a brake system configured to perform step (i) of
claim 1, as follows:
Nakaura discloses ... a brake system configured to, based on a
difference between a target speed and an actual speed of the first
wheel individually being greater than a predetermined threshold
during braking of the wheels, reduce a commanded braking
capacity on the first wheel individually to increase the actual
speed of the first wheel individually.
Id. (emphases added) (citing Nakaura, 6:5—25).
Appellants contend Nakaura fails to disclose “controlling brake
pressure at one wheel [i.e., the second wheel of claim 1] based on a speed
analysis (pull-down) of another wheel [i.e., the first wheel of claim 1].”
Appeal Br. 13. As can be seen from the foregoing summary, the Examiner
does not rely on Nakaura as containing such a disclosure. Thus, Appellants’
argument concerning the Nakaura disclosure does not establish error in the
rejection.
The Examiner next finds Naito discloses “an anti-lock brake control
that issues hydraulic pressure increase, decrease and holding commands on
the basis of wheel speed.” Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Naito, 16:20-44). The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the vehicle and
braking system of Nakaura to employ the command control of Naito, “to
perform anti-lock brake control so that the wheels are protected against
vibration when the brakes are applied.” Id. at 4—5.
8
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
Appellants contend Naito fails to disclose (with line breaks added):
(1) the aspect of controlling brake pressure at one wheel based
on the pull-down of another wheel,
(2) altering brake pressure based on the difference between a
target speed and the actual speed of one wheel,
(3) reducing a rate of the increase in brake pressure, and/or
(4) reducing a rate of increase in brake pressure in response to a
difference between a target speed and an actual speed being
greater than a threshold.
Appeal Br. 13—14. As can be seen from the foregoing summary, the
Examiner does not rely on Naito as containing such disclosures. This is
readily apparent as to disclosures (1), (3), and (4). As to disclosure (2), we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Naito (like Nakaura) discloses
altering the brake pressure applied to one wheel on the basis of that one
wheel’s speed. Naito, 16:1—44, Fig. 8. Further, the Examiner relies on
Nakaura and not Naito as disclosing altering the brake pressure applied to
the one wheel based on the difference between a target speed and the actual
speed of the one wheel. See Non-Final Act. 4—5. Thus, Appellants’
argument concerning the Naito disclosure does not establish error in the
rejection. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
when unpatentability is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures)
The Examiner next finds Tozu discloses, in relation to step (ii) of
claim 1, “reducing a commanded rate of increase in braking capacity on the
second wheel to reduce skidding associated with the wheels.” Non-Final
Act. 5 (emphasis added) (citing Tozu, 11:5—41). According to the Examiner,
Tozu discloses “the braking force of one wheel will undergo an anti-skid
9
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
control and once this control is initiated with respect to one of the front left
or front right wheels[,] the increasing linear rate of the braking force applied
to the other of the wheels will be reduced.” Id. (emphases added). The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the vehicle and
braking system of Nakaura and Naito to “reduc[e] the rate of increase of
braking force for a second wheel as taught by Tozu in order for a vehicle not
to skid.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellants contend the cited disclosure of Tozu “merely teaches
providing different brake pressures [at different wheels] based on the
relative frictional resistance provided to each wheel, in an attempt to prevent
skidding.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Tozu, 11:13—28). Appellants’ view is that
Tozu fails to disclose “controlling brake pressure at one wheel based on the
pull-down of another wheel, and/or . . . reducing a rate of the increase in
brake pressure.” Id.
We determine that a preponderance of evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that Tozu discloses reducing a commanded rate of brake
pressure increase on a second wheel in response to determining slippage at a
first wheel. See Tozu, 11:5—42. Appellants’ rebuttal is not persuasive
because it does not consider the entirety of the cited disclosure of Tozu.
Compare Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Tozu, 11:5—41), with Appeal Br. 14
(discussing Tozu, 11:13—28).
The entirety of the cited Tozu disclosure provides for “right-left yaw
control... for adjusting the braking force applied to” right and left front
wheels. Tozu, 11:5—12. In particular, when “anti-skid control is initiated
with respect to one of’ those wheels (i.e., a first wheel), “the increasing rate
of the braking force applied to the other of the wheels [i.e., a second wheel]
10
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
will be reduced.'1'’ Id. (emphases added). As one example of that general
disclosure, Tozu indicates that if the driver applies the brakes at a time when
the first wheel is on a low friction surface and the second wheel is on a high
friction surface, the first wheel “is about to be locked at first” so the brake
pressure applied to the first wheel “will be reduced to prevent the wheel
from being locked.” Id. at 11:13—23. This generally corresponds to step (i)
of claim 1. Although the cited Tozu disclosure does not reflect that the
imminent locking of the first wheel is determined based on monitoring the
speed of the first wheel, the Examiner relies on Nakaura and not Tozu for
such disclosure. See Non-Final Act. 4—5. Tozu goes on to indicate, upon
detecting the imminent locking of the first wheel, the braking force applied
to the second wheel follows a “pulse pressure increasing mode to gradually
increase the braking force,” in order to prevent vehicle rotation. Id. at
11:23—42 (emphases added). This control of the second wheel corresponds
to step (ii) of claim 1. Id. at 11:7—10, 11:31—33.
In short, we conclude the Examiner’s findings challenged by
Appellants concerning how the combined disclosures of Nakaura, Naito, and
Tozu disclose the limitations of claim 1 are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s reasons for why
one of skill in the art would combine those disclosures. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1—3, 9-11, 13, and 16—18 as having been obvious over
Nakaura, Naito, and Tozu.
D. §103 Obviousness over Nakaura, Naito, Tozu, and either Butler or
Hosaka (Claims 4—8, 12, 14, 15, and 18)
Appellants rely solely on their arguments directed to independent
claims 1, 9, and 16 in opposition to the remaining obviousness rejections of
11
Appeal 2015-004921
Application 13/800,513
several dependent claims as having been obvious over Nakaura, Naito, Tozu,
and either Butler or Hosaka. Appeal Br. 14—15. For the reasons provided
above, these rejections are sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite is summarily affirmed.
The rejection of claims 16—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Naito is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1—3, 9-11, 13, and 16—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakaura, Naito, and Tozu is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4—6, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nakaura, Naito, Tozu, and Butler is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7, 8, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nakaura, Naito, Tozu, and Hosaka is affirmed.
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
12