NISSIN KOGYO CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

15025471 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
15/025,471 03/28/2016 Takaaki KOMABA IIP-307-A 5737
21828 7590 10/02/2020
CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES PC
22960 VENTURE DRIVE
SUITE 100
NOVI, MI 48375
EXAMINER
BURCH, MELODY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
cbalaw@gmail.com
wblackman@ameritech.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKAAKI KOMABA, HIROAKI TOKOI, and KOUJI SAKAI
Appeal 2020-002138
Application 15/025,471
Technology Center 3600

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, 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, 3–5, 9, and 11–17. See Non-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 Autoliv Nissin Brake
Systems Japan Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002138
Application 15/025,471
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to a brake fluid pressure control system for a
vehicle having a brake-by-wire brake device.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A brake-by-wire, brake fluid pressure control system for a
vehicle comprising:
a master cylinder that is activated by operating a brake
activator;
a motor cylinder device that is arranged between the
master cylinder and a wheel cylinder and generates a brake
hydraulic pressure in response to an operation amount of the
brake activator;
a controller that controls for driving the motor cylinder
device in relation to brake-by-wire braking operations;
a first brake fluid line that allows the master cylinder to
communicate with the wheel cylinder;
a second brake fluid line that is connected to the first brake
fluid line and allows the motor cylinder device to communicate
with the wheel cylinder; and
a two-position three-way valve that is arranged at a
connection point between the first brake fluid line and the second
brake fluid line, wherein during brake-by-wire braking
operations involving brake hydraulic pressure generated by the
motor cylinder device the two-position three-way valve is
switchable between a first state in which the master cylinder
communicates with the wheel cylinder and the motor cylinder
device is shut off from the wheel cylinder and a second state in
which the master cylinder is shut off from the wheel cylinder and
the motor cylinder device communicates with the wheel cylinder,
and
during a brake-by-wire braking operation when operation
of the brake activator is released by a driver of the vehicle and
power of the motor cylinder device is shut off, the controller
switches the two-position three-way valve to the first state to
prevent brake fluid from flowing into the second brake fluid line.
Appeal 2020-002138
Application 15/025,471
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Belart US 4,641,891 Feb. 10, 1987
Wilber US 5,320,203 June 14, 1994
Ganzel US 6,206,484 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
Gilles ’452 US 2013/0207452 A1 Aug. 15, 2013
Kunimichi JP 2005-022465 Jan. 27, 2005
Shogo JP 2010-173471 (A) Aug. 12, 2010
Gilles ’002 DE 10 2010 020 002 A1 Nov. 10, 2011

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–5, 9, and 11–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the
applicant regards as the invention. Non-Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 3, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Gilles.2 Non-Final Act. 5.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gilles and Kunimichi.3 Non-Final Act. 7.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gilles and Wilber. Non-Final Act. 7.

2 The Examiner utilizes Gilles ’002, which is a German reference, as the
basis for the rejections, but utilizes Gilles ’452, which is the U.S. patent
application derived from Gilles ’002, presumably because it is in English
whereas the German reference is in German. We refer to these references
collectively as “Gilles.”
3 The Examiner utilizes an English language translation of the Japanese
reference Kunimichi.
Appeal 2020-002138
Application 15/025,471
4
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gilles, Kunimichi, and Wilber. Non-Final Act. 8.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gilles and Belart. Non-Final Act. 9.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gilles and Ganzel. Non-Final Act. 10.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gilles and Shogo.4 Non-Final Act. 11.

OPINION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner asserts that “[t]he phrase [in claim 1] ‘a brake-by-wire,
brake fluid pressure control system for a vehicle comprising: a master
cylinder. . .’ is indefinite” because “the instant published application
describes the by-wire system and the conventional hydraulic brake system as
two separate systems and some of the elements recited in claim 1 form a part
of the conventional hydraulic brake system.” Non-Final Act. 3. As
Appellant points out, however, the claim “is directed to [a] brake fluid
pressure control system that includes six components, i.e., a master cylinder,
a motor cylinder device, a controller, first and second brake fluid lines and a
two-position, three-way valve” and “further defines general BBW braking
operations effected by the controller.” Appeal Br. 14. In other words, the
claim is directed towards the brake fluid pressure control system that is used
as part of a brake-by-wire (“BBW”) system. In that sense, there are not

4 The Examiner utilizes an English language translation of the Japanese
reference Shogo.
Appeal 2020-002138
Application 15/025,471
5
separate BBW and hydraulic systems as alleged by the Examiner, but there
is an overall hydraulic control system that acts in response to certain
activities of the BBW components. The claim clearly sets forth what
elements are part of the system and the alleged confusion lies only with the
Examiner’s mischaracterization as to what the claims encompass.
The Examiner also finds that “[t]he phrase [in claim 1] ‘a brake-by-
wire braking operation’. . . is indefinite.” Non-Final Act. 3. This is
allegedly so because the Examiner finds confusion as to which BBW
operation is then being referenced in claim 16 due to the additional presence
in claim 1 of “brake-by-wire braking operations.” Id. Claim 16, however
does not merely recite “the brake-by-wire operation” of claim 1 generically,
but elaborates that it is the BBW braking operation “during which the
controller switches the two-position three-way valve to the first state.” As
such, it is clear that the reference in claim 16 is to the “a brake-by-wire
braking operation” limitation recited at the end of claim 1 and not the
general “brake-by-wire braking operations” limitation recited earlier.
Regarding claim 17, the Examiner takes issue with the fact that the
Specification describes a situation that appears to conflict with the claim
language. Although the Specification may describe a different situation in
which the switching occurs, this is described as an alternative embodiment.
Paragraph 89 of the Specification-as-filed corresponds to paragraph 96 cited
by the Examiner. Paragraph 87 of the Specification-as-filed explains that
“[t]he brake fluid pressure control system for a vehicle 10a shown in FIGS.
5 and 6 is different from that according to the embodiment as described
above on the point that a pressure sensor P” operates in a certain way. As
such, the allegedly conflicting language of claim 17 merely describes a
Appeal 2020-002138
Application 15/025,471
6
different embodiment than what is claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection.
Obviousness
All of the Examiner’s rejections rely in some way or another on Gilles
and the Examiner’s interpretation thereof. According to the Examiner,
Gilles teaches the claimed “during a brake-by-wire operation, as best
understood, when operation of the brake activator is released by a driver of
the vehicle and power of the motor cylinder device is shut off, the controller
switches the two-position three-way valve (120) to the first state.” Non-
Final Act. 6. The Examiner further explains that “the power off or failsafe
state will occur when the brake activator is released by a driver of the
vehicle and also when the brake activator is actuated by a driver” and so it
meets the claimed “during” aspect. Id. at 15.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretations are improper
because they “are contradicted by the plain meaning of the claim language
and by the actual teachings of Gilles.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant further
argues that “claim 1 expressly requires the control operation to occur ‘during
a brake-by-wire braking operation’ and hence does preclude / define over the
conventional failsafe operation” in Gilles. Id. Appellant further elaborates
that “a posita would understand that a BBW does not occur under [Gilles’]
failsafe conditions” because the triggering event in Gilles is a system failure,
not a release of the brake activator by the driver. Appeal Br. 18. We agree
with Appellant.
When read properly, the claim language at issue relates to a triggering
event that causes the claimed switching of the valve. This is claimed to
occur “during a brake-by-wire operation” and “when operation of the brake
activator is released by a driver.” In this manner it is not intended to merely
Appeal 2020-002138
Application 15/025,471
7
happen while those particular conditions exist, but it is claimed such that the
switching occurs during the claimed operation when the activator is released.
As such, this is the triggering event, not merely a system failure as taught in
Gilles. It does not matter that Gilles’ system failure may occur at the same
time as the activator is released by the driver because Gilles in not reacting
to the activator release, but the system failure. Furthermore, Appellant is
correct that Gilles switching occurs during a failsafe condition, which one of
skill in the art would understand not to be the same as occurring during a
brake-by-wire operation.
The main flaw with the Examiner’s assessment is that it appears to
ignore the prosecution history of this application. As Appellant has noted,
Appellant discovered an issue that can occur during normal brake-by-wire
applications that “may make a driver have a different pedal feeling for the
brake pedal to feel discomfort.” Spec. ¶ 6. Appellant admittedly overcomes
this by performing functions that are normally performed during a failsafe
operation, such as that taught in Gilles. Appellant does not appear to dispute
that Gilles teaches the overall functionality of claim 1 as to the switching,
but Appellant does contest that Gilles teaches causing this to happen during
anything other than a failsafe operation.
It appears that Appellant has made numerous attempts to clarify the
invention at issue by making various amendments to the claim language so
as to better focus the claims on this enhancement to normal BBW operation
outside of a failsafe condition. Given that Appellant has made it clear that
the amendments were for this purpose, it seems disingenuous for the
Examiner to assert that “it is unclear why Appellant amended claim 1 to
recently define the power off or fail-safe state as taking place during ‘a
brake-by-wire operation.’” Ans. 14. Appellant made this amendment in
Appeal 2020-002138
Application 15/025,471
8
order to clarify that the switching is occurring during normal operation,
rather than a failsafe condition as disclosed in Gilles, and that it is triggered
by the driver releasing the brake activator. All of this is done, as discussed
above, to address the problem discovered by Appellant of an uncomfortable
pedal feeling by the driver that may occur during normal braking operation.
Although the switching operation in Gilles may be similar or even the same
as disclosed, it does not occur during normal braking operations nor is it
triggered by the release of the activator as claimed. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejections, all of which are predicated on this
erroneous interpretation of Gilles and independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
More specifically,
Appeal 2020-002138
Application 15/025,471
9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 9,
11–17
112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 3–5, 9,
11–17
1, 3, 15, 17 102(a)(1) Gilles 1, 3, 15, 17
4, 9 103 Gilles, Kunimichi 4, 9
5, 11 103 Gilles, Wilber 5, 11
12 103 Gilles, Kunimichi,
Wilber
12
13 103 Gilles, Belart 13
14 103 Gilles, Ganzel 14
16 103 Gilles, Shogo 16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 9,
11–17

REVERSED