Ex Parte Premkumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

13039586 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/039,586 03/03/2011
34044 7590 07/05/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jay ant Premkumar
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.
081276-9471 1184
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAY ANT PREMKUMAR, JIAMU HU, BRAD LOBBESTAEL,
and HSIEN-CHENG WU
Appeal2014-009625
Application 13/039,586
Technology Center 2800
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-7 and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims
8-14 are withdrawn from consideration. (Final Act 1.)
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Robert Bosch LLC.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-009625
Application 13/039,586
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to "determining the speed of a
driven wheel. Specifically, the invention determines the speed of a driven
wheel using the speed of a drive shaft and the speed of a second driven
wheel, and compensates for timing factors." (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1, which is
the only independent claim and is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A controller for a wheel speed detection system, the
controller comprising:
a processor configured to receive the speed of a first
driven wheel from a wheel speed sensor at a first update
speed and the speed of a drive shaft from a drive shaft sensor
at a second update speed different from the first update speed;
and
a non-transitory computer readable medium including
program instructions executed by the processor for
determining a speed of a second driven wheel based on a
plurality of detected speeds of the first driven wheel and
detected speeds of the drive shaft over time;
wherein the controller compensates for a difference in
the first update speed and the second update speed, and
compensates for delays in receiving the speed of the first
driven wheel and the speed of the drive shaft such that an
error between the determined speed of the second driven
wheel and an actual speed of the second driven wheel is
reduced to about zero.
The Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Murray
Sah
US 2007/0142163 Al
US 2009/0112428 Al
2
June 21, 2007
Apr. 30, 2009
Appeal2014-009625
Application 13/039,586
Dunn et al. US 2009/0192689 Al July 30, 2009
(hereinafter "Dunn")
Czompo US 2011/0244810 Al Oct. 6, 2011
(filed Mar. 30, 2010)
Clarence W. Rowley & Belinda A. Batten., Dynamic and Closed-
Loop Control, Fundamentals and Applications of Modem Flow
Control Ch. 5, 231 AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics
115--48 (R. D. Joslin & D. N. Miller, eds., Sept. 2009) (hereinafter
"Rowley").
R. E. Deakin, Linearization Using Taylor's Theorem and the
Derivation of Some Common Surveying Observation Equations, Notes
on Least Squares Ch. 7 (RMIT University, Dept. of Geospatial
Science, 2005), available at http://www.mygeodesy.id.au/documents/
Chapter%207 .pdf (hereinafter "Deakin").
The Re} ections2
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dunn, Czompo, and Sah. (See Final Act. 3-8.)
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dunn, Czompo, Sah, and Deakin. (See Final Act. 8-9.)
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dunn, Czompo, Sah, and Murray. (See Final Act. 9-10.)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dunn, Czompo, Sah, and Rowley. (See Final Act. 10-11.)
2 A rejection of claims 1-7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite is withdrawn. (See Ans. 2-3.)
3
Appeal2014-009625
Application 13/039,586
The Record
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Mar. 31, 2014; "Reply Br." filed Sept. 8, 2014) and the
Specification ("Spec." filed Mar. 3, 2011, amended Aug. 21, 2013) for the
positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed
Oct. 2, 2013) and Answer ("Ans." mailed July 7, 2014) for the reasoning,
findings, and conclusions of the Examiner.
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' contentions is whether
the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Dunn, Czompo, and Sah
teaches or suggests "determining a speed of a second driven wheel based
on a plurality of detected speeds of the first driven wheel and detected
speeds of the drive shaft over time" (hereinafter the "second driven wheel
speed limitation"), as recited in claim 1. 3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Dunn teaches the second driven wheel speed
limitation. (Final Act. 4-5 (citing Dunn Abstract, i-fi-126, 30-32).) The
Examiner explains "Dunn discloses an ongoing calculation of wheel speed
based on signals received while the vehicle is driving; such an ongoing
calculation naturally uses a plurality of detected speeds over time to
determine the speed of the second driven wheel over time." (Ans. 3--4.) In
other words, the Examiner's reading of Dunn's disclosure on claim 1 is
3 Appellants' contentions present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
4
Appeal2014-009625
Application 13/039,586
premised on the Examiner's construing claim 1 as not limited to "multiple
values of the first driven wheel speed are used to determine a single speed of
the second driven wheel." (Ans. 3.)
Appellants describe Dunn's teachings as follows:
Dunn discloses an anti-lock braking system (ABS) that
determines rear wheel speed without using a Differential Speed
Sensor (DSS). Abstract. The ABS includes an ABS module 10
that receives inputs from two front wheel speed sensors 12, 14.
Column 4, lines 16-20. The ABS also includes a power train
module (PCM) 36, which receives signals from the output shaft
speed (OSS) sensor 38. Column 4, lines 27-30. The PCM 36
receives sensor information for the front wheel speed sensors 12,
14 from the ABS module 10. Column 4, lines 33-39. The PCM
3 6 processes the information from the front wheel speed sensors
12, 14, and the information from the OSS sensor 38, to determine
the speeds of each wheel and performs ABS functionality. Id.
(App. Br. 6.) Appellants contend "Dunn does not ... address the limitation
of claim 1 related to 'determining the speed of the second driven wheel
based on a plurality of detected speeds of the first driven wheel and detected
speeds of the drive shaft over time."' (App. Br. 8.) Appellants explain as
follows:
Claim 1 recites "determining f! speed of a second driven wheel
based on a plurality of detected speeds of the first driven wheel
and detected speeds of the drive shaft over time." Thus "a speed"
is determined using "a plurality" of detected speeds.
Determining multiple speeds is not what is being claimed. The
Examiner is clearly applying his own interpretation to the claim
and not interpreting what is actually claimed.
(Reply Br. 2.) We agree with Appellants.
Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de nova. Cordis
Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561F.3d1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
5
Appeal2014-009625
Application 13/039,586
interpretation consistent with the Specification, and the language should be
read in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants' Specification describes the second
driven wheel speed as being determined "at cycle K" (Spec. i-f 18), i.e., at a
specific point in time, rather than an ongoing determination. The second
driven wheel speed limitation recites the determination of "a" speed. We
conclude, in light of Appellants' Specification (see id. i-fi-1 17-23), one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the calculation of "a" speed to
recite the calculation of a speed at specific point in time.
It is a general rule of claim construction that, absent a clear indication
to the contrary, the indefinite article "a" in an open-ended claim (i.e., one
using the transitional term "comprising") should be read as encompassing
"one or more" of the recited items. See Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v.
Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342--43 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we
construe the second driven wheel speed limitation as encompassing
determining a single speed at a particular point in time and determining a
plurality of speeds at respective particular points in time. Indeed, when used
in Appellants' electronic stability control (ESC) system (Spec. i-f 12), the
speed may be determined approximately every 5 msec (id. i-f 15).
However, although the second driven wheel speed limitation
encompasses one or more speed determinations, we conclude one of
ordinary skill in the art, reading the second driven wheel speed limitation in
light of Appellants' Specification (see id. i-fi-1 17-23), would understand that
the remaining recitations of the second driven wheel speed limitation to
apply to each of the one or more determined speeds. To find otherwise
6
Appeal2014-009625
Application 13/039,586
would read the italicized terms in the following recitation out of the claim:
"based on a plurality of detected speeds of the first driven wheel and
detected speeds of the drive shaft over time," since the claim would then
encompass each second wheel speed being determined based on a single
detected speed of the first driven wheel and a single detected speed of the
drive shaft at a single point in time. Such a claim construction is
unreasonably broad.
Accordingly, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated error in the
rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or
claims 2-7 and 15, which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 15 is reversed.
REVERSED
7