Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2020

14369293 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
14/369,293 06/27/2014 Carsten List BOSC.P8933US/1000199949 1389
24972 7590 05/18/2020
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
SMITH, ISAAC G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2020 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CARSTEN LIST, HARTMUT SCHUMACHER, and
FALKO SIEVERS
____________

Appeal 2019-006114
Application 14/369,293
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BRETT C. MARTIN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 12–17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tourville (US 5,541,523, iss. July 30, 1996) and Narita (JP 2003-127822,
pub. May 5, 2008).2 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(a). Appellant identifies Robert Bosch GmbH, as the Applicant
and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 A rejection of claims 20–22 has been obviated by Appellant cancelling
such claims. See Advisory Action dated February 8, 2019; Claims App.
Appeal 2019-006114
Application 14/369,293
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is a method that monitors the charge in a
capacitor used as a back-up energy supply for a vehicle airbag system.
Spec. 1. Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
12. A method for monitoring an energy reserve for a safety
device for a vehicle, the method comprising:
partially discharging the energy reserve,
recharging the energy reserve after the partial discharge,
evaluating a period of time of the recharging from a starting
value to a test voltage value,
wherein the period of time is monitored and evaluated to
determine whether the energy reserve is functional.
OPINION
Claim 12
The Examiner finds that Tourville discloses the invention
substantially as claimed except for measuring the time to recharge the
capacitor (energy reserve) to determine whether it is functional. Final
Act. 6–8. The Examiner relies on Narita for determining the functionality of
a capacitor by measuring the time to discharge, rather than recharge, the
capacitor. Id. at 8. The Examiner takes the position that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that any change in capacitor
voltage over time, whether during discharge or recharge, can be used to
diagnose the capacitor. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
modify Tourville and Narita to achieve the claimed invention. Id. at 9.
Appeal 2019-006114
Application 14/369,293
3
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
done this to diagnose capacitance. Id.
Appellant argues that Tourville is directed to evaluating the
functionality of a squib resistor, not a capacitor. Appeal Br. 3. Although
Appellant concedes that Tourville discloses a capacitor and measures the
time required to charge the capacitor, such time measurement is used to
evaluate the functionality of the squib resistor, not the capacitor. Id.
In response, the Examiner states that Tourville teaches all of the steps
of claim 12. Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, the only limitation of
claim 12 that is not explicitly recited in claim 12 is “to determine whether
the energy reserve is functional,” which is considered merely a result of
evaluating during the “period of time.” Id.
It is the Examiner's position that a person having ordinary skill
in the art would find it obvious to simply interpret the recharge
time of the capacitor of Tourville [] as being indicative of
whether the capacitor itself is “functional”, and furthermore,
this interpretation is implied by Tourville [], as Claim 12 does
not define what is meant by “functional” or establish any level
of functionality, and because Tourville [] teaches that a
recharge time of a capacitor is “monitored and evaluated”, this
recharge time clearly implies that the capacitor is “functional”
within the scope of the claim, as the capacitor is used as part of
the process of Tourville [] and functions to charge to a
predetermined threshold voltage which provides a recharge
time. If the capacitor of Tourville [] was non-functional, it
would not be possible to obtain any results such as the recharge
time.
Id. at 4–5.
In reply, Appellant argues that Tourville does not use its time values
to ascertain the functionality of capacitor 38. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues
that Tourville is concerned with the operability of its squib resistor. Id.
Appeal 2019-006114
Application 14/369,293
4
According to Appellant, Tourville is not concerned with how fast or slow
capacitor 38 recharges. Id.
Appellant’s invention relates primarily to vehicle airbag systems.
Spec. 1. Vehicle airbag systems feature a flexible container that expands
rapidly with a gas to protect a vehicle occupant in the event of a collision.
Detection of a collision is determined, in many systems, by an
accelerometer. Narita ¶ 4. Inflation of the airbag, following collision
detection by the accelerometer, is activated by a squib resistor. Id.,
Tourville, col. 1, ll. 12–15. Squib resistors require a source of electric power
for activation. Narita ¶¶ 1, 2, 13. If the primary electric power system of a
vehicle is rendered inoperable by a collision, electric energy stored in a
capacitor may be used to activate the squib resistor, thereby inflating the
airbag. Id.
It is known in the prior art that capacitors in airbag systems are
susceptible to deterioration over time. Id. ¶ 3. Hence the prior art teaches
methods to diagnose whether capacitors remain functional. Id. By
“functional,” as used here as well as in claim 1, we mean capable of
performing their intended function, namely, discharging electrical energy to
safely and effectively cause inflation of a vehicle airbag in the event of a
collision. Narita’s background section discloses that it is known in the prior
art to diagnose capacitors by measuring the charging time of a capacitor,
however, the details of such diagnostic method are not provided. Id.
Narita’s invention is directed to diagnosing an airbag backup capacitor
system in accordance with the following three steps:
(1) using a power supply to increase the voltage charge in the
capacitor;
(2) discharging current from the capacitor; and
Appeal 2019-006114
Application 14/369,293
5
(3) calculating a time value in connection with discharging
current.
Id. ¶ 6. A determination is then made whether the backup capacitor is
normal based on the calculated time value. Id.
Tourville is directed to test circuitry for determining the operability of
an airbag squid resistor. Tourville, Abstract. Referring to Tourville,
Figure 1, voltage-to-current converter 26 receives input at element 28 and
then generates current that passes through capacitor 38 and voltage
comparator 42. Id. col. 2, l. 56 – col. 3, l. 8. Voltage comparator 42
generates a binary output 48 such that comparator 42 generates a logical “1”
when the voltage across capacitor 38 exceeds a predetermined voltage
threshold. Id. The time measurement for voltage comparator 42 to generate
a logical “1” is used to determine whether the squib resistor is in an operable
condition. Id.
Although the Examiner is correct in finding that Tourville teaches
measuring the time required to charge capacitor 38, it does not necessarily
follow that such time measurement is used to determine that the capacitor is
“functional” as claimed. As long as capacitor 38 can receive a charge so that
voltage comparator 42 can generate a logical “1,” Tourville determines
whether the squib resistors are operable. However, as correctly argued by
Appellant, Tourville does not impose any criteria on capacitor 38 that it
receive a charge of a specified amount within a specified time criteria so as
to evaluate and determine whether capacitor 38 has sufficiently deteriorated
that replacement is warranted.
The Examiner’s finding that Tourville discloses monitoring a period
of time for charging a capacitor from a starting value to a test value and
evaluating such time period to determine whether the capacitor is functional
Appeal 2019-006114
Application 14/369,293
6
is not supported by the record before us. The Examiner’s legal conclusion
of unpatentability flowing from such erroneous fact finding is similarly in
error.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of claim 12.
Claims 13–17
These claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 12. Claims
App. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims suffers from the same
infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 12. Thus, for
essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with claim 12, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 13–17.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12-17 103 Tourville, Narita 12-17
REVERSED