Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2020

15050968 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020)

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.
15/050,968 02/23/2016 Tae-Kyung LEE 83617019 5383
28395 7590 04/01/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
TAYLOR JR, ANTHONY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2020 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 TAE-KYUNG LEE
Appeal 2019-003323
Application 15/050,968
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003323
Application 15/050,968
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to vehicle sensor output processing. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle control system comprising:
a processor programmed to control a vehicle subsystem
according to a recovered signal generated from a sum of an actual
output signal of a sensor and a product of a time constant of the
sensor and filtered changes of the output signal with respect to
time such that a magnitude and phase of the recovered signal
approach a magnitude and phase of an actual input signal to the
sensor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Reference Name Document ID Pub. Date
Shouda U.S. 5,544,639 Aug. 13, 1996
Berger U.S. 5,920,617 July 6, 1999
Rigby U.S. 2012/0235483 A1 Sept. 20, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Berger. Final Act. 2.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Berger in view of Rigby. Final Act. 6.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Berger in view of Shouda. Final Act. 7.
OPINION
The Examiner rejected the independent claims before us (claims 1, 8,
and 15) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, as being directed to subject
Appeal 2019-003323
Application 15/050,968
3
matter that would have been obvious over, Berger. As the Examiner does not
provide any articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings to
explain why, if Berger does not anticipate, the claimed subject matter would
nevertheless have been obvious, we do not consider a rejection under § 103
to have been adequately set forth by the Examiner, and discuss only the
Examiner’s theory of anticipation below. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”).
The purpose of Berger’s signal modification process is very similar to
that of Appellant, in that both seek to correct for slow dynamic response
sensors. Berger col. 1, ll. 20–42; Spec. para. 24. Berger’s signal modification
algorithm is also very similar to Appellant’s in that both sum a sensor signal
(TR in Berger; ȳ in Appellant’s Specification) with a product of the sensor’s
time constant (T1 in Berger; τ1 in Appellant’s Specification) and some other
value. Berger col. 1, ll. 48–65; Spec. paras. 32–34. It is that other value that
is the subject of this appeal. In rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15 based on Berger,
the Examiner relies on Berger’s “sliding average value of the successively
sensed measured change values” as the recited “filtered changes of the
output signal with respect to time.” Final Act. 3–4 (emphasis omitted) (citing
Berger col. 1, ll. 48–65). Appellant correctly contends this was
unreasonable. App. Br. 5–6; Reply. Br. 1–2.
It is true that a “sliding average value of the successively sensed
measured change values” can, when used as a threshold value for a low-pass
filter, for example (Ans. 11), or applied to modify an operand in some other
Appeal 2019-003323
Application 15/050,968
4
way, reasonably be considered to act as a “filter.” However, the express
language of the claim uses “filtered” as an adjective to modify “changes of
the output signal with respect to time.” This implies that the act of filtering
and the changes with respect to time are not one and the same. If the
Examiner relies on multiplying by the “sliding average value of the
successively sensed measured change values” as the filtering process of the
claims, that process would then not be performing filtering of “changes of
the output signal with respect to time” as the claims require. It seems more
likely that one skilled in the art would read Berger’s “sliding average value
of the successively sensed measured change values” as the “changes of the
output signal with respect to time” in light of Appellant’s Specification
(paras. 32–34), and regard Berger, as Appellant contends, as silent with
respect to any further filtering applied to that sliding average value.
Paragraphs 26 and 32 of Appellant’s Specification discuss (with
regard to block 36 of Figure 3B) a differentiated signal y�̇, which would most
reasonably be understood to refer the recited “changes with respect to time.”
Paragraphs 27 and 33 go on to discuss (referring to block 38 of Figure 3B)
filtering that is then applied to that differentiated signal, and the result, as
paragraph 34 explains, is a “filtered differentiated signal,” which is then
multiplied by time constant τ1 (Spec. para. 29; Fig. 3B, block 40). Although
the language of the independent claims does not exactly match the
nomenclature used in the Specification, the claim language closely tracks the
process described in paragraphs 27–29 and 32–34 of the Specification and
depicted in Figures 3B and 4. To read the claims so broadly as to omit one of
the steps of the process required to arrive at “filtered [] changes with respect
to time” or to allow for the filtering step and differential value to be one and
the same, is to read the claim so broadly that the Examiner’s construction
Appeal 2019-003323
Application 15/050,968
5
likely becomes inconsistent with the plain language of the claim, and, at the
very least, becomes divorced from Appellant’s Specification. “[When giving
claim] terms their broadest reasonable construction, the construction cannot
be divorced from the specification.” In re NTP, 654 F. 3d 1279, 1288 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections on the grounds presently
set forth by the Examiner.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–9,
12–16, 19,
20
102/103 Berger 1, 2, 5–9,
12–16, 19,
20
3, 10, 17 103 Berger, Rigby 3, 10, 17
4, 11, 18 103 Berger, Shouda 4, 11, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED