Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2020003385 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021)

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.
15/717,875 09/27/2017 Ian Moore 83870195 4023
117396 7590 01/04/2021
FGTL/Burgess Law Office, PLLC
P.O. Box 214320
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320
EXAMINER
BURCH, MELODY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN MOORE, CHRISTIAN SCHMALER, MATTHIAS
BAUMANN, and THOMAS SVENSSON
Appeal 2020-003385
Application 15/717,875
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, 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 1–15. 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 2020-003385
Application 15/717,875

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for operating a motor
vehicle hydraulic brake system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for operating a hydraulic brake system of a
motor vehicle having a brake booster and a hydraulic brake boost
comprising:
detecting a brake pressure;
estimating an underpressure prevailing in an
underpressure chamber of the brake booster based on the
detected brake pressure and an actuation of the hydraulic brake
boost; and
controlling the hydraulic brake boost based on the
estimated underpressure.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kulkarni US 6,033,038 Mar. 7, 2000
Nishizaki US 2002/0117347 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Epple US 2010/0280723 A1 Nov. 4, 2010
REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 1–4, 7–13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Epple.
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Epple and Nishizaki.
3. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Epple and Kulkarni.

2 A rejection of claims 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in
the Answer. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2020-003385
Application 15/717,875

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1; Anticipation--Epple
Appellant asserts that Epple does not disclose “estimating an
underpressure ... based on ... actuation of the hydraulic brake boost,” as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, Epple’s control
unit 1 modifies a triggering threshold value as a function of vacuum Pvacuum
of the vacuum brake booster and that Epple’s automatic braking becomes
more sensitive with decreased vacuum Pvacuum. Id. (citing Epple ¶ 25).
The Examiner responds that because Appellant provides little
guidance as to the signal upon which Appellant relies to actuate the
hydraulic brake boost, the Examiner considers that Epple’s disclosure that
the underpressure or Pvacuum may be estimated with the aid of operating
variables, meets this limitation. Ans. 7 (citing Epple ¶ 29). In particular, the
Examiner asserts that Epple discloses that “brake pedal actuation signals are
inputted into control unit 1 at line 3 to help control and signal the actuation
of the hydraulic brake boost 2. Therefore, Epple discloses estimating an
underpressure or Pvacuum based on actuation of the hydraulic brake boost via
brake pedal actuation signals.” Id.
Appellant replies that each of the lines between control unit 1 and
hydraulic braking system 2 are lines that are output from control unit 1.
Reply Br. 2. Appellant asserts that Epple cannot estimate underpressure
based on the hydraulic brake boost, because Epple’s hydraulic brake boost
“never suppl[ies] a direct input to the control unit 1.” Id. at 3. According to
Appellant, any operating variable associated with the brake pedal of Epple
includes “the operating force of the brake pedal, the torque exerted upon the
Appeal 2020-003385
Application 15/717,875

4
brake pedal, or the path covered by the brake pedal.” Id. (citing Epple ¶ 21).
For the following reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
The Specification discloses that “the underpressure prevailing in the
underpressure chamber of the brake booster is estimated taking into account
an actuation of the HBB. Actuation of the HBB [is] determined, for
example, by detecting an actuation signal or an actuation parameter of the
HBB.” Spec. ¶ 27; see also Fig. 1. Thus, the actuation signal is “of (from)
the HBB.” As Appellant correctly notes, Epple discloses that “[h]ydraulic
braking system 2 has electrically controllable valves 21 to 25 and pumps 26,
which are able to be controlled by control unit 1 via its output lines 27 to
31.” Epple ¶ 23, Fig. 1; see also Reply Br. 3. The Examiner does not point
to any disclosure in Epple describing input from hydraulic braking system 2
to control unit 1. The Examiner’s finding that Epple estimates an
underpressure based on an actuation of the hydraulic brake boost is,
therefore, not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–4, and 7–11, which
depend therefrom, as anticipated by Epple. The Examiner rejects
independent claim 12 based on the same findings for claim 1 (see Final Act.
3), and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12, and claims 13 and 15,
which depend therefrom, as anticipated by Epple for the same reasons.
Rejections 2 and 3; Obviousness
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 1, and claim 14 depends from
claim 12. The Examiner does not rely on Nishizaki or Kulkarni in any way
that would remedy the deficiency of Epple discussed above with respect to
claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 as
Appeal 2020-003385
Application 15/717,875

5
unpatentable over Epple and Nishizaki, and the rejection of claims 6 and 14
as unpatentable over Epple and Kulkarni.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–13,
15
102(a)(1) Epple 1–4, 7–13,
15
5 103 Epple, Nishizaki 5
6, 14 103 Epple, Kulkarni 6, 14
Overall
Outcome:
1–15

REVERSED