Ex Parte Zipperer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12774473 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121774,473 05/05/2010
24972 7590 11/02/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Zipperer
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.
10191/6307 8072
EXAMINER
SHECHTMAN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAR TIN ZIPPERER, WINFRIED MOSER,
KLAUS-PETER SCHNELLE, STEFFEN SCHUMACHER,
LOTHAR KRAUTER, RENE DEPONTE, and CHRISTOF OTT1
Appeal2015-005979
Application 12/774,473
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Non-Final
Decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, and 10. Claims 1, 8, and 10 are
independent. Claims 2 and 9 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ROBERT BOSCH
GmbH. See Appeal Brief 2.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
May 5, 2010 ("Spec."); (2) the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.")
mailed June 26, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Dec. 22,
2014; (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Apr. 2, 2015; and (5) the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 2, 2015.
Appeal2015-005979
Application 12/774,473
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to applying an
asymmetrical dither signal to a mechanical component to reduce or prevent
stick-slip behavior in the mechanical component. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below with disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A method for operating a mechanical system having a
component, the method comprising:
impressing on the component an oscillating micromotion;
wherein the oscillating micromotion includes movement
in a first direction at a first speed during a first time duration
within one period of oscillation, and movement in a second
direction at a second speed during a second time duration within
the one period of oscillation,
wherein the first speed is greater than the second speed
and the first time duration is shorter than the second time
duration, resulting in an asymmetrical dither; and
wherein an integral of a first speed of the oscillating
micromotion or of a corresponding control variable over a first
time duration within the one period of oscillation in the first
direction is at least approximately equal in absolute value to an
integral of a second speed of the oscillating micromotion or of a
corresponding control variable over a second time duration
within the one period of oscillation in the second direction.
REFERENCE
The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Cook et al. ("Cook") US 2008/0099706 Al May 1, 2008
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Cook. Non-Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2015-005979
Application 12/774,473
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and
issues raised by the Appellants. We have not considered other possible
issues that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not
before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Cook discloses "wherein the
first speed is greater than the second speed and the first time duration is
shorter than the second time duration, resulting in an asymmetrical dither,"
as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Cook discloses "wherein an
integral of a first speed of the oscillating micromotion or of a corresponding
control variable over a first time duration within the one period of
oscillation in the first direction is at least approximately equal in absolute
value to an integral of a second speed of the oscillating micromotion or of a
corresponding control variable over a second time duration within the one
period of oscillation in the second direction," as recited in claim 1?
DISCUSSION
Issue 1
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
3
Appeal2015-005979
Application 12/774,473
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
The Examiner relies on Cook's changing of the frequency of
oscillation of an electronically controlled valve to disclose "wherein the first
speed is greater than the second speed and the first time duration is shorter
than the second time duration, resulting in an asymmetrical dither," as
recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds
that in Cook, the frequency of the dither can be decreased, whereby the
portion of the dither before the frequency adjustment is necessarily faster
and necessarily oscillates within a shorter time duration at a higher
frequency than the portion of the dither after the frequency adjustment.
Ans. 5-8 (citing Cook Fig. 7, step 715 and i-fi-1 51---61 ).
Appellants contend the Examiner errs because, in Cook, adjusting
frequency and adjusting amplitude are distinct and separate method loops
such that the frequency and amplitude cannot be concurrently adjusted.
Appeal Br. 8. Therefore, Appellants contend, "the initial frequency may be
adjusted such that the frequency of the second movement is different from
the frequency of the first movement in the one period of oscillation but the
amplitudes are necessarily still the same." Appeal Br. 9.
Initially, we note that Appellants concede that in Cook, "the initial
frequency may be adjusted such that the frequency of the second movement
is different from the frequency of the first movement in the one period of
oscillation." Id. Consequently, any time the frequency is adjusted within a
period as described, speed in one direction must necessarily be greater than
speed in another direction, at least for that period, resulting in asymmetrical
dither of the valve. Appellants fail to establish why Cook's dither would not
4
Appeal2015-005979
Application 12/774,473
be asymmetrical simply because in Cook, "the amplitudes are necessarily
still the same." Id.
Appellants contend "[t]he Examiner mistakenly believes that an
oscillating micromotion is an asymmetrical dither if the aforementioned
requirement is satisfied for only a single period of oscillation." Reply Br. 2.
In other words, Appellants argue an oscillating micromotion having an
unbounded number of symmetrical oscillations cannot be characterized as
asymmetrical by having just one period of asymmetrical dither. Id.
We disagree because Appellants' argument is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim. Claim 1 does not require the oscillation to be
impressed on the component asymmetrically for multiple periods. Rather,
claim 1 is specifically directed to movement "within one period of
oscillation." Appeal Br. Claims App'x 1. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Cook's oscillation resulting in a single period of
asymmetrical dither is sufficient to anticipate the disputed limitation.
Issue 2
The Examiner relies on Cook's sinusoidal waveform 871-1,
triangular waveform 871-2, or square-wave waveform 871-3, as illustrated at
Figure 8, to disclose "wherein an integral of a first speed of the oscillating
micromotion or of a corresponding control variable over a first time duration
within the one period of oscillation in the first direction is at least
approximately equal in absolute value to an integral of a second speed of the
oscillating micromotion or of a corresponding control variable over a second
time duration within the one period of oscillation in the second direction," as
recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4. Appellants contend that the elements
5
Appeal2015-005979
Application 12/774,473
and paragraphs cited [from Cook] are not relevant to the limitation at issue
because these waves are not asymmetrical dithers but rather are all
symmetrical dithers, which are not within the scope of the claims. Appeal
Br. 9.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. Initially, we note that
we agree with the Examiner's finding that Cook discloses asymmetrical
dither within a single period, as discussed above with respect to issue 1. See
Non-Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 5---6. Moreover, Cook describes Figure 8 as an
"exemplary valve controller 160 that provides variable frequency and
amplitude electronic dither thereby supporting the Examiner's finding that
waveforms 871-1, 871-2, and 871-3 disclose asymmetrical dither." Cook
i-f 65 (emphasis added). Also, our visual review of waveforms 871-1, 871-2,
and 871-3 in Figure 8 indicates that each of the waveforms is depicted as
asymmetrical, i.e., the dither frequency appears to change within period P
for each of the three waveforms. We, therefore find unpersuasive
Appellants' argument that these waves are all symmetrical dithers.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 3 5 U.S. C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 1. Claims 8 and 10, which recite corresponding limitations and are
argued together with claim 1; and claims 3-7, which depend from claim 1,
are not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 9. Therefore, we likewise sustain
the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
6
Appeal2015-005979
Application 12/774,473
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
7