Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

14127036 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/127,036 03/06/2014
23122 7590
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 Renaissance Blvd
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406
11/02/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Heinz-Anton Schneider
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.
l 700Pl2700WOUS 8942
EXAMINER
LANE, NICHOLAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEINZ-ANTON SCHNEIDER and CHRISTOF MARON
Appeal2017-010052
Application 14/127,036
Technology Center 3600
Before JEREMY M. PLENZLER, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010052
Application 14/127,036
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated August 12, 2016
("Non-Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an actuator system and operating method
for an actuator system. Claims 1 and 1 7 are the independent claims on
appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for
emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An actuator system for a service or parking brake, comprising:
at least one electronically controlled electromotive
actuator, the electronically controlled electromotive actuator is
an electromechanically operated motor vehicle brake system
comprising an electrically operated wheel brake for generating a
defined application force between friction partners; and
at least one electronic control unit, including at least one
microprocessor with implemented software for performing a
regulation strategy for controlled or regulated electrical supply
of the electromotive actuator, the electronic control unit
connected via at least one electric supply line to the
electromotive actuator, and connected to at least one of a
plurality of switches, and sensors S,
Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG ("Appellant") is the applicant
pursuant to 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief, dated February 7, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), at 1.
2 Claims 10 and 18 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 10--13 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-010052
Application 14/127,036
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to:
receive one or more of a plurality of items of
information supplied by the sensors S as input variables,
determine a brake application force exerted by the
electromotive actuator based on the one or more of the
plurality of items of information,
compare the determined brake application force
with a specified minimum brake application force, and
emit at least one item of information, or control
signal for demanding a brake boosting actuation from a
mechanical energy of a driver of the vehicle, when the
target-actual value comparison has shown that the
determined brake application force set by the
electromotive actuator is smaller than the specified
minimum brake application force, and
emit a control signal to boost the brake application
force by increasing power to the electromotive actuator
when the mechanical energy requested from the driver of
the vehicle does not increase the brake application force
to the specified minimum, and
wherein the electronic control unit is implemented as an
integral controller for electric parking brake (EPB) and anti-lock
braking system/electronic stability program (ABS)/(ESP)
functions for controlling the electromechanical actuators of the
parking brake.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that the phrase "emit a control signal to boost the
brake application force by increasing power to the electromotive actuator
when the mechanical energy requested from the driver of the vehicle does
not increase the brake application force to the specified minimum" in
3
Appeal2017-010052
Application 14/127,036
independent claims 1 and 17 is considered new matter. Non-Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner also explains that claims 1 and 17 require that
[ 1] exerting a brake application force using the electromotive
actuator; [2] subsequently emitting a signal to demand that a
driver provide a mechanical boosting force when the force
generated by the electromotive actuator is less than the minimum
application force; and [3] subsequently emitting a signal to
provide additional power to the electromotive actuator to
increase a brake application force when it is determined that the
mechanical boosting force provided by the driver is less than the
minimum application force.
Answer, dated June 1, 2017 ("Ans."), at 3. The Examiner concludes that the
Specification "does not disclose, explicitly or implicitly, such an order of
operation of the brake device" and "nothing in the specification discloses,
explicitly or implicitly, that power to the electromotive actuator is increased
after demanding a mechanical boosting force [from] the driver and
determining that mechanical boosting force is insufficient to reach the
minimum brake force." Id.
Appellant contends that the claimed features do comply with the
written description requirement based on both explicit and implicit support
found throughout Appellant's Specification, especially on page 2:16-30, and
page 4:32 to page 5:26. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant's system has a goal of
applying brake force to reach a minimum level to safely brake the vehicle.
We agree with Appellant that, based on the Specification, including those
portions identified above, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily
4
Appeal2017-010052
Application 14/127,036
understand that "in order to consume [sic 'conserve' 3] energy, the system
requests the brake boost from the driver before controlling the peripheral
systems to boost brake force above the minimum level," and that "if the
driver applies inadequate force, the peripheral system would then have to be
energized to increase brake force to the minimum level." Reply Brief, dated
July 24, 2017 ("Reply Br."), at 3.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-17 is not
sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-
17 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
3 Appellant pertinently argues the cited Specification disclosure
indicates "this is a sequential process (asking the driver to apply the brake
force manually) is performed in order to save energy ('unnecessary energy
consumption is reduced'). It is more energy efficient to first request that
the driver press the brake pedal, .... "). Reply Br. 2-3.
5