STEERING SOLUTIONS IP HOLDING CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2021

2021000455 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
15/457,411 03/13/2017 Zaki Ryne 88610-2946 (N000652 US) 3259
59582 7590 07/28/2021
Dickinson Wright PLLC - Troy
2600 West Big Beaver Rd.
Suite 300
Troy, MI 48084-3312
EXAMINER
MAWARI, REDHWAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2021 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):
DWPatents@dickinson-wright.com
tgood@dickinsonwright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZAKI RYNE, RAKESH MITRA, TAO YANG,
SCOTT T. SANFORD, and MICHAEL R. STORY

Appeal 2021-000455
Application 15/457,411
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–10. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“STEERING SOLUTIONS IP HOLDING CORPORATION.” Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000455
Application 15/457,411

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A steering system comprising:
a control module configured to dynamically determine an
operating mode based on a set of input signal values comprising
a plurality of lateral acceleration signal values and respectively
corresponding handwheel position values; and
the control module configured to calibrate the steering
system according to operating mode that is determined.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Moshchuk et al.
(“Moshchuk”)
US 2014/0032049 A1 Jan. 30, 2014
Takeuchi et al.
(“Takeuchi”)
US 2015/0127200 A1 May 7, 2015
Tseng et al. (“Tseng”) US 2017/0313323 A1 Nov. 2, 2017
Abe et al. (“Abe”) US 2017/0334454 A1 Nov. 23, 2017

Rejections
Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by
Takeuchi.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Takeuchi in view of Abe.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Takeuchi in view of Tseng.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Takeuchi in view of Tseng and Moshchuk.
Appeal 2021-000455
Application 15/457,411

3

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Takeuchi discloses a “steering system” that
includes “a control module configured to dynamically determine an
operating mode based on a set of input signal values comprising a plurality
of lateral acceleration signal values and respectively corresponding
handwheel position values,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3–4 (citing
Takeuchi ¶¶ 35, 38, 39, 58).
The Appellant argues that it is unclear if Takeuchi’s disclosure of a
calculation of steering angle in paragraph 39 refers to “an angle of the
steering wheel as contrasted with an angle of the front wheels.” Appeal
Br. 7. The Appellant supports this argument by pointing that Takeuchi
discloses two steering angles in paragraph 35; namely, an angle of the
steering wheel and an angle of the front wheels. Appeal Br. 6. Takeuchi’s
paragraph 35 describes with italics added:
[0035] Here will be explained a steering mechanism 15
for changing an orientation of the front wheels 2. The steering
mechanism 15 is comprised of: a steering wheel 16; a steering
linkage 17 adapted to transmit a rotation of the steering wheel
16 to the front wheels 2; and an assist mechanism 18 adapted to
assist a steering angle or a steering force of the steering wheel
16. The assist mechanism 18 is provided with a not shown
actuator, and adapted to control an assisting amount of the
actuator. Therefore, a ratio of the steering angle of the steering
wheel 16 to an actual steering angle of the front wheels 2 can
be approximated to one to one by reducing the assisting amount
of the assist mechanism 18. As a result, the front wheels 2 can
be turned directly in response to the rotation of the steering
wheel 16 so that the sportiness of the vehicle 1 is enhanced.
We agree with the Appellant that the term “steering angle” in paragraph 35
is used to reference both the steering angle of steering wheel 16 (i.e., a
handwheel) and the steering angle of front wheels 2. The Appellant also
Appeal 2021-000455
Application 15/457,411

4

supports the argument by pointing out that “there is no clarification of
whether the steering angle noted in paragraph [0039] is an angle of the
steering wheel (which the Examiner alleges is comparable to the claimed
handwheel position) or an angle of the front wheels.” Appeal Br. 6.
Takeuchi’s paragraph 39 describes with italics added:
[0039] The driving force control system of the present
invention is configured to change a rotational speed of the
prime mover in accordance with a vehicle speed and an index
calculated on the basis of a behavior of the vehicle or calculated
on the basis of an operation of the driver causing a behavioral
change (e.g., an accelerating or a steering operation).
According to the present invention, the index representing a
driving preference or disposition (or intension) of a driver may
be employed for the above-explained purposes. For example, a
predetermined calculation value of acceleration or corrected
acceleration, a predetermined calculation value calculated based
on an opening degree or an operating speed of the accelerator,
and a calculation value of a steering angle or a steering speed
may be used as the index. Specifically, a command sportiness
index (abbreviated as command SPI hereinafter) disclosed in
above-explained PCT international publication WO201
l/021634 is used in the present invention. Hereinafter, the
command SPI will be explained in more detail.

We agree with the Appellant that “a calculation value of a steering angle” in
paragraph 39 is not specific to the steering angle of steering wheel 16 or the
steering angle of front wheels 2.
In response, the Examiner explains that Takeuchi’s “paragraph 0035
clearly shows the steering angle is the steering angle of the [steering] wheel
16.” Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also finds that “an ordinary
skilled person in the art would recognize that the steering of the front wheels
corresponds to the steering of the wheel, the cited reference clearly discloses
a one to one ratio between the steering angle of the wheel 16 and the front
Appeal 2021-000455
Application 15/457,411

5

wheels.” Ans. 5–6. In other words, the Examiner finds that the steering
angle of Takeuchi’s steering wheel 16 can be derived from the angle of the
front wheels. See Final Act. 3.
The Examiner fails to adequately explain –– and we fail to understand
–– how the disclosure in Takeuchi’s paragraph 35 of a steering angle of
steering wheel 16 is necessarily the same as the steering angle that is
referenced in Takeuchi’s paragraph 39. In this case, the Examiner’s finding
appears to be based on speculation because paragraph 35 uses “steering
angle” in reference to an angle of the steering wheel and an angle of the
front wheels, and “steering angle” in paragraph 39 may refer to either
element. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner’s finding is
inadequately supported.
Further, Takeuchi’s disclosure in paragraph 35 of a ratio of the
steering angle of steering wheel 16 to an actual steering angle of front
wheels 2 is, at best, an approximation of one to one. So, even if “steering
angle” in paragraph 39 refers to an angle of the front wheels, the Examiner
must explain –– and does not adequately do so on this record –– how an
approximation of one to one with the front wheels corresponds to the
claimed invention. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner’s finding is
inadequately supported.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 2–4 as anticipated by Takeuchi. The
Examiner’s rejections of claims 6–10 rely on the same inadequately
supported finding from the rejection of independent claim 1. See Final
Act. 6–8. The Examiner fails to rely on Abe, Tseng, or Tseng and
Moshchuk in any manner that would remedy the deficiency in the
Appeal 2021-000455
Application 15/457,411

6

Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of dependent claims 6–10 as unpatentable over Abe, Tseng, or
Tseng and Moshchuk.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–10 is reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 102(a)(1) Takeuchi

1–4
6, 7 103 Takeuchi, Abe 6, 7
8 103 Takeuchi, Tseng. 8
9, 10 103 Takeuchi, Tseng,
Moshchuk
9, 10
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–10

REVERSED