Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 9, 2020

15609804 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 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.
15/609,804 05/31/2017 Dexin Wang 83787215 5235
138534 7590 11/09/2020
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC
(For Client: Ford Global Technologies LLC)
150 S. Wacker
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2020 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):
mailroom@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEXIN WANG, STEVEN R. EL AILE,
MOHAMAD WAJIH ISSAM FARHAT, and DOUGLAS SCOTT RHODE
Appeal 2020-002887
Application 15/609,804
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, 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, 3–10, 12–17, 19–23, and 25–28. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002887
Application 15/609,804

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to vehicle steering control. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a sensor associated with a steering system to measure an
operational angle of the steering system;
a torque controller operatively coupled to the steering
system, the torque controller to calculate a control torque based
on a request angle and the operational angle;
a torque compensator to control an output torque of the
steering system based on the control torque;
a condition extractor to store data associated with the
steering system over multiple driving sessions;
a condition analyzer to determine a drift of the steering
system occurring over the multiple driving sessions based on the
stored data, the request angle, the operational angle and the
output torque of the steering system; and
a steering controller to control the steering system to
compensate for the determined drift.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–10, 12–17, 19–23, and 25–28 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
OPINION
Claim 1 recites “a condition extractor to store data associated with the
steering system over multiple driving sessions” and “a condition analyzer to
determine a drift of the steering system occurring over the multiple driving
sessions based on the stored data.” Appendix A, A1 (emphasis added).
Independent claims 10 and 17 include similar limitations. Id. A2–A3. The
Appeal 2020-002887
Application 15/609,804

3
Examiner determines that “[t]he disclosure of the application does not have
[written description] support for the[se] claimed limitations.” Final Act. 3.
Appellant responds that “[t]he entirety of the Examiner’s analysis and
presentation of evidence in his rejection is a single sentence,” which “is
merely a conclusion devoid of any analysis or evidentiary support, as
required by law.” Appeal Br. 9. This is not the entirety of the Examiner’s
explanation of the rejection in the record. Appellant acknowledges, for
example, that the Advisory Action incudes further explanation. Id. We
additionally note that the Final Action, itself, elaborates on the rejection in
the “Response to Arguments.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner’s Answer also
provides further explanation for the rejection. Ans. 3–5.
“The test for the sufficiency of the written description ‘is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date.’” Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d
671, 682 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). The Examiner has the initial
burden of presenting evidence of reasons why persons skilled in the art
would not recognize, in the disclosure, a description of the invention defined
by the claims and that burden is met when the Examiner points out that the
claim reads on embodiments outside the scope of the original written
description. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976). The
Examiner has met that burden by pointing out that there is no explanation in
the Specification for the data being from multiple driving sessions. See Final
Act. 3; Ans. 3–5.
Appeal 2020-002887
Application 15/609,804

4
Appellant alleges written description support for the data being from
multiple driving sessions is present in paragraphs 47 and 50 of the
Specification (Appeal Br. 10), as well as in paragraph 49 of the Specification
(Reply Br. 3). Appellant does not allege that “multiple driving sessions” is
mentioned in the Specification. Rather, Appellant contends that one skilled
in the art would have understood the disclosure of “historical data,” “shifting
trends,” and “slow drift” as evidence that Appellant had possession of the
use of data over “multiple driving sessions.” Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 3–5.
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive.
As the Examiner explains, “[t]he specification does not state that the
historical data is data gathered by the vehicle over multiple sessions” or
“define the shifting trends as data stored over multiple driving sessions.”
Ans. 4. With respect to “slow drift,” the Examiner explains that
[u]nder broadest reasonable interpretation, the term ‘slow’ may
be interpreted to refer to the severity of the drift. In other words,
‘slow drift’ may refer to a drift that is not severe. Since the
specification is lacking a definition of the term ‘slow drift’, it is
unreasonable for a person skilled in the art to recognize that
‘slow drift’ means recording and storing data over multiple
driving sessions and using the stored data to identify degradation
of the steering system.
Id. at 5.
While it may have been obvious to use data over multiple driving
sessions based on Appellant’s disclosure, that is not the test for whether
written description support exists. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352 (“[W]hile the
description requirement does not demand any particular form of
disclosure, Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann–La Roche Inc., 541
F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008), or that the specification recite the claimed
invention in haec verba, a description that merely renders the invention
Appeal 2020-002887
Application 15/609,804

5
obvious does not satisfy the requirement, Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107
F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).”). Accordingly, Appellant’s
contentions as to what would have been “likely” (Reply Br. 4) or “very
conceivable” (id.) are not helpful.
For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–10, 12–17, 19–23, and 25–28.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–10, 12–
17, 19–23,
25–28
112(a) Written
Description
1, 3–10, 12–
17, 19–23,
25–28

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED