Ex Parte 6450587 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201495001449 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 95/001,449 09/23/2010 6450587 BRKE-30,757 4668 25883 7590 03/03/2014 HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P P.O. BOX 741715 DALLAS, TX 75374-1715 EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3993 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/03/2014 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 ____________________ VOLKSWAGEN GROUP of AMERICA Requester v. 55 BRAKE LLC 1 Patent Owner, Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2013-010316 Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B1 2 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before JAMES T. MOORE, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL 1 55 Brake LLC is the Patent Owner and the real party in interest (Appeal Brief of Patent Owner (hereinafter "App. Br.") 2). 2 Patent US 6,450,587 B1 (hereinafter "'587 patent") issued September 17, 2002 to MacGregor et al. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 7-11, 13-17, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 40 and 41 of the '587 patent are subject to reexamination and stand rejected (Right of Appeal Notice 3 (hereinafter "RAN") 1). The Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315 from the Examiner's rejections with respect to all of the rejected claims (App. Br. 2). The Requester did not file any briefs in support of the Examiner's rejections. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315. We are informed that the '587 patent was previously involved in litigation styled 55 Brake LLC v. Audi North America, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-08-177-S-BLW (D.C. Idaho) (App. Br. 2). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION The '587 patent is directed to a vehicle brake safety system that automatically applies and maintains the brakes in the applied state when one or more conditions exist that makes the vehicle movement dangerous (Title, Abstract). Representative independent claims 7 and 8 read as follows (Claims App'x, italics added): 7. A safety system for use with a brake mechanism of a vehicle, the safety system adapted to monitor conditions at a 3 The Examiner's Answer incorporates the RAN by reference and includes further comments. The RAN further incorporates by reference portions of the Request for Inter Partes Reexamination filed September 23, 2010 (hereinafter "Request") which includes an Appendix that sets forth various claim charts. Hence, we cite to the Answer (hereinafter "Ans."), the RAN, as well as the Request and its Appendix herein. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 3 plurality of stations at the vehicle to determine whether vehicle movement should be permitted, the safety system comprising: a management mechanism adapted to apply the brake mechanism to inhibit vehicle movement; a plurality of sensors adapted to be at stations in the vehicle and adapted to sense conditions at the stations; a solid-state controller operatively connected to the management mechanism and to the plurality of sensors, wherein the controller is adapted to receive signals from the plurality of sensors and, in response to signals from the plurality of sensors indicating a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement, to actuate the management mechanism to apply the brakes, wherein one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor, and wherein the controller does not actuate the management mechanism to apply the brake mechanism if the vehicle motion sensor signals the controller that the vehicle is moving above a certain speed. 8. A safety system for use with a brake mechanism of a vehicle, the safety system adapted to monitor conditions at a plurality of stations at the vehicle to determine whether vehicle movement should be permitted, the safety system comprising: a management mechanism adapted to apply the brake mechanism to inhibit vehicle movement; a plurality of sensors adapted to be at stations in the vehicle and adapted to sense conditions at the stations; a solid-state controller operatively connected to the management mechanism and to the plurality of sensors, wherein the controller is adapted to receive signals from the plurality of sensors and, in response to signals from the plurality of sensors indicating a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement, to actuate the management mechanism to apply the brakes, wherein the controller comprises a signal validation circuit that validates signals from the sensors for acceptance by the controller only if the signals arrive at the controller, uninterrupted, for a predetermined minimum duration of time. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 4 Independent claim 9 is directed to a system similar to claim 7 while independent claim 13 is directed to a method of controlling brakes in a vehicle "wherein the controller validates the signals from the plurality of sensors after the signals are uninterrupted for a certain amount of time." THE REJECTIONS The Examiner adopted the following 31 proposed rejections of various claims: 1. Claims 7-11, 13, 14, 26, 27, 29, 40 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) as anticipated by Bevins 4 (RAN 2-3). 2. Claims 7, 9, 11, 26, 33 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Matsuo 5 (RAN 3-4). 3. Claims 7, 9, 26, 33 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Edelen 6 (RAN 4-6). 4. Claims 7, 9, 10, 26 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Deitchman 7 (RAN 6-7). 5. Claims 7, 9-11, 26, 33 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Graham 8 (RAN 7-8). 6. Claims 7, 9 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Donatelle 9 (RAN 8-9). 4 U.S. Patent No. 5,706,909 issued Jan. 13, 1998 to Bevins et al. 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,629,043 issued Dec. 16, 1986 to Matsuo et al. 6 U.S. Patent No. 5,370,449 issued Dec. 6, 1994 to Edelen et al. 7 U.S. Patent No. 4,838,617 issued Jun. 13, 1989 to Deitchman et al. 8 U.S. Patent No. 4,664,218 issued May 12, 1987 to Graham et al. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 5 7. Claims 7, 9-11, 26, 33 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Siepker 10 (RAN 9). 8. Claims 7, 9, 11, 26, 33 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Weissbrich 11 (RAN 10). 9. Claims 7, 9, 11 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Buschmann 12 (RAN 10-11). 10. Claims 7, 9-11 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wise 13 (RAN 11-12). 11. Claims 7, 9, 11, 26, 33 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Nakamoto 14 (RAN 12-13). 12. Claims 8, 13-17, 27, 29, 34 and 41 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Matsuo in view of either Fontaine, 15 Gillberg 16 or Kolodin 17 (RAN 13-14). 13. Claims 8, 13-17, 27, 29, 34 and 41 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Edelen in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (RAN 15). 14. Claims 8, 13, 14, 27, 29 and 41 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Deitchman in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (RAN 15-16). 9 U.S. Patent No. 5,925,940 issued Jul. 20, 1999 to Donatelle et al. 10 U.S. Patent No. 6,019,436 issued Feb. 1, 2000 to Siepker. 11 U.S. Patent No. 5,417,624 issued May 23, 1995 to Weissbrich et al. 12 U.S. Patent No. 6,086,515 issued Jul. 11, 2000 to Buschmann et al. 13 U.S. Patent No. 4,446,950 issued May 8, 1984 to Wise et al. 14 U.S. Patent No. 4,561,527 issued Dec. 31, 1985 to Nakamoto et al. 15 U.S. Patent No. 4,572,319 issued Feb. 25, 1986 to Fontaine. 16 U.S. Patent No. 4,525,635 issued Jun. 25, 1985 to Gillberg. 17 U.S. Patent No. 5,742,231 issued Apr. 21, 1998 to Kolodin. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 6 15. Claims 8, 13-17, 27, 29, 34 and 41 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Graham in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (RAN 16-17). 16. Claims 8, 13, 14, 27 and 29 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Donatelle in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (RAN 17). 17. Claims 8, 13-17, 27, 29, 34 and 41 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Siepker in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (RAN 17-18). 18. Claims 8, 13-15, 27, 29, 34 and 41 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Weissbrich in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (RAN 18-19). 19. Claims 8, 13-15, 27 and 29 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Buschmann in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (RAN 19-20). 20. Claims 8, 13-15, 27 and 29 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wise in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (RAN 20). 21. Claims 8, 13-15, 27, 29, 34 and 41 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nakamoto in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (RAN 20-21). 22. Claims 15-17, 33 and 34 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bevins in view of Morita 18 (RAN 21-22). 23. Claim 11 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Edelen in view of Morita (RAN 22). 18 U.S. Patent No. 5,675,190 issued Oct. 7, 1997 to Morita. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 7 24. Claims 11 and 33 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Deitchman or Donatelle in view of Morita (RAN 23). 25. Claim 33 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Buschmann or Wise in view of Morita (RAN 23). 26. Claims 15-17 and 34 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Deitchman in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin as applied to claims 13 and 8, and in further view of in view of Morita (RAN 23- 24). 27. Claims 15-17 and 34 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Donatelle in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin as applied to claims 13 and 8, and in further view of in view of Morita (RAN 24). 28. Claims 16-17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Weissbrich in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin as applied to claim15, and in further view of in view of Morita (RAN 24). 29. Claims 16-17 and 34 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Buschmann in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin as applied to claims 15 and 8, and in further view of in view of Morita (RAN 24- 25). 30. Claims 16-17 and 34 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wise in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin as applied to claims 15 and 8, and in further view of in view of Morita (RAN 25). 31. Claims 16-17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nakamoto in view of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin as applied to claims 15, and in further view of in view of Morita (RAN 25). Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 8 ISSUES The following issues have been raised in the present appeal. 1. Whether the Examiner erred in interpreting the limitations "plurality of sensors" and "wherein one said of plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor." 2. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to provide a signal validation circuit that validates signals from the sensors if the signals arrive at the controller, uninterrupted for a predetermined minimum duration of time. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). This is the standard for claim interpretation in both original examination and re-examination. See In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). ANALYSIS We address the various arguments of the Patent Owner as set forth in its Appeal Brief, but in an order that differs from that presented. For example, we address the interpretation of claims 7-9 before addressing the Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 9 disclosure and teachings of the art. Only those arguments made have been considered and any arguments not made are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii). Claim Interpretation Claim 7 The primary dispute between the Patent Owner and the Examiner is about the proper interpretation of independent claim 7 and whether the claim is satisfied by prior art references that disclose a vehicle motion sensor and one other sensor that senses a vehicle condition. As reproduced above, claim 7 recites, inter alia: a plurality of sensors adapted to be at stations in the vehicle and adapted to sense conditions at the stations; a solid-state controller … [which] in response to signals from the plurality of sensors indicating a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement, [] actuate[s] the management mechanism to apply the brakes, wherein one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor. The Examiner observes that "[a] plurality is defined as two or more" and claim 7 recites "a plurality of sensors … wherein one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor." (Ans. 4). The Examiner's notes that plurality is defined as two or more and that the claim recites that one of the plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor (Ans. 4-5; RAN 26-27). The Examiner argues, "if one of the sensors is a speed sensor, then only one other sensor is required" to satisfy the claim language (RAN 26-27). The Patent Owner disagrees and asserts that the Examiner interpreted claim 7 "in an unreasonably broad manner that ignores both the explicit Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 10 language of the claims and the specification." (App. Br. 10). The Patent Owner argues that claim 7 requires more than one sensor in addition to the vehicle motion sensor and states while the vehicle motion sensor is one of "a plurality of sensors adapted to be at stations in the vehicle and adapted to sense conditions at the stations," it is not a sensor that can provide one of the "signals from the plurality of sensors indicating a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement." As there must be at least two such sensors based on a plain reading of Claim 7, these two sensors must be in addition to the vehicle motion sensor. (App. Br. 14). The Patent Owner also argues that recitation of a controller that responds to "signals" from the "sensors" of claim 7 supports its interpretation (App. Br. 11-12). The Patent Owner argues that the Examiner's interpretation "is flawed as it assumes that Claim 7 requires only two sensors" and "forces the vehicle motion sensor to act in a manner that is not supported by the claim or the specification (i.e., by indicating an unsafe condition rather than providing an over-ride signal)." (App. Br. 17). According to the Patent Owner, the vehicle motion sensor does not indicate a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement, but instead, is described in the Specification as being "used by the controller to determine whether the vehicle is already in motion" so as to override actuation of the management mechanism if the vehicle is moving above a certain speed (App. Br. 13; see generally id. 12-14). We find no error in the Examiner's interpretation of claim 7 and are not persuaded by the Patent Owner's arguments. Firstly, claim 7 is clear in Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 11 reciting that "one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor." The structure of claim 7 supports the Examiner's interpretation. Claim 7 recites that "one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor" shortly after the limitation "signals from the plurality of sensors indicating a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement" within the same paragraph. Thus, the structure of claim 7 indicates that the vehicle motion sensor is one of the recited plurality of sensors and is consistent with the Examiner's interpretation thereof. Secondly, the Patent Owner's argument asserting that the vehicle motion sensor does not indicate a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement is unpersuasive because the Patent Owner misapprehends the claim language. Claim 7 is clear that signals (plural) from the plurality of sensors (plural) indicate a condition (singular) that is unsafe for vehicle movement. The claim does not require each of the plurality of sensors to provide a signal indicative of an unsafe condition so as to preclude inclusion of the vehicle motion sensor from being considered by the solid-state controller in determining whether an unsafe condition exists. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (appellant's arguments fail because they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims). The logical extension of the Patent Owner's assertion is that the brakes are actuated only when two unsafe conditions are sensed. The Specification of the '587 patent does not support such an interpretation. Thirdly, the Patent Owner's argument that the vehicle motion sensor is merely used to determine whether the vehicle is already in motion and to override actuation of the brakes is not persuasive. The Specification of the Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 12 '587 patent (see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 6-14) and the language of claim 7 is clear that the vehicle speed input from the vehicle motion sensor is used by the controller to actuate or not actuate the brakes. The Patent Owner's argument appears to overlook the fact that as discussed above, the recitation that "signals from the plurality of sensors" indicate "a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement" does not preclude a motion signal from being one of the plurality of signals considered by the controller. At best, the Patent Owner has set forth another possible interpretation of the claim 7 and its limitations. However, that does not detract from the interpretation set forth by the Examiner which, while being broader than that of the Patent Owner, is reasonable in view of the Specification and the language of the claim as discussed above. Claim 8 The Patent Owner relies on the arguments submitted with respect to claim 7 to assert that claim 8 requires a plurality of sensors in addition to a vehicle motion sensor, and highlights the fact that claim 8 does not specifically recite a vehicle motion sensor (App. Br. 19). However, this line of argument is unpersuasive for the reasons already discussed supra relative to claim 7. The fact that claim 8 does not specifically recite a vehicle motion sensor does not persuasively establish that a vehicle motion sensor cannot be one of the recited plurality of sensors. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 13 Claim 9 The Patent Owner relies on the arguments submitted with respect to claim 7 to assert that claim 9 requires a plurality of sensors, which does not include a vehicle motion sensor (App. Br. 19-20). The Patent Owner also points out that claim 9 recites "vehicle motion override system comprising one of said plurality of sensors being a vehicle motion sensor." (App. Br. 20). Hence, the Patent Owner argues that "[c]laim 9 makes it clear that the vehicle motion sensor is directed to 'over-ride' of the actuation of the brake mechanism, and not to 'indicating a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement.'" (App. Br. 20). We are not persuaded by the Patent Owner's arguments. Claim 9 explicitly recites "one of said plurality of sensors being a vehicle motion sensor." Hence, the reasons discussed supra relative to claim 7 are generally applicable to claim 9 as well. As to the recitation of a "vehicle motion override system comprising one of said plurality of sensors being a vehicle motion sensor," there is nothing in this recitation, which necessitates a plurality of sensors in addition to the recited vehicle motion sensor. The Specification of the '587 patent states that "[t]he preferred brake control system also includes a sensor and logic for preventing automatic application of the brake if the vehicle is in motion above a certain speed." (Col. 6, ll. 6-8; see also col. 4, ll. 37-43). The Specification of the '587 patent also states that an "'override' signal is generated by the motion detection circuits" to block application of the brakes (col. 17, ll. 1-4). While the term "motion detection circuits" is not specifically defined in the Specification of the '587 patent, other uses of the Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 14 term "circuit" (and variants) refer to the operative connection for components such as sensors to other components (see, e.g., col. 5, ll. 26-31; col. 10, l. 65-col. 11, l. 10). Thus, "vehicle motion override system" recited in claim 9 would be understood by one of ordinary skill reviewing the '587 patent as referring to the logic in the control system and the operative connection of the motion sensor to the controller. There is nothing in this limitation reciting that the motion sensor is part of "a vehicle motion override system" which necessitates a plurality of sensors in addition to the recited vehicle motion sensor. The claim language is consistent with the Specification of the '587 patent which would be understood as describing a speed signal of the vehicle motion sensor being provided to the controller through the operatively connecting circuit (i.e., motion detection circuit) so that the controller receives the signal, and together with another signal, does or does not actuate the brakes in accordance with the logic in the controller. Claim 13 Claim 13 is a method claim that recites providing a plurality of sensors to sense conditions that make vehicle movement unsafe and providing a controller that responds to the signals from the plurality of sensors. The Patent Owner argues that like claim 8, claim 13 does not recite a vehicle motion sensor and further argues that like claim 7, there must be multiple sensors (App. Br. 20). However, these arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons already discussed supra. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 15 Rejection 1: Bevins The Examiner finds that speed sensor 34 and weight sensor 32 which detects the weigh load on the driver seat of Bevins are used therein to actuate emergency brake actuator 36 if the weight and the speed of the vehicle is outside of a certain range or falls below a threshold (RAN 2-3 incorporating by reference Request 16-18, Appendix 1-18; see also Bevins col. 4, ll. 43-56; col 5, ll. 5-11; col. 6, ll. 13-40). The Examiner also finds that Bevins discloses a signal validation circuit in the form of a time delay so that brief fluctuations in weight does not cause activation of the emergency brake actuator (RAN 3; see also Bevins col. 8, ll. 3-7). The Patent Owner argues the various rejected claims together and contends that Bevins merely discloses use of signals from the weight and speed sensors, and fails to disclose a plurality of sensors to sense conditions that are unsafe for vehicle movement because "a speed sensor is not a sensor that senses a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement." (App. Br. 21). Hence, the Patent Owner's argument is based on claim interpretation and whether the claims require a plurality of sensors in addition to a speed sensor. As discussed supra, we are not persuaded by the Patent Owner and agree with the Examiner's interpretation. The Patent Owner also asserts that a driver's weight sensor in Bevins is not sensing a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement (App. Br. 21). This argument is also unpersuasive. Bevins specifically states, "[a] serious hazard associated with unattended motor vehicle is vehicle movement due to failure of the vehicle operator to properly set the parking brake" or operation by an unauthorized person such as a child (Bevins, col. 1, ll. 16-24; col. 6, ll. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 16 38-40). Bevins proposes a vehicle safety automatic braking apparatus that activates the vehicle emergency brake when "the weight detected in the driver's seat of the vehicle falls outside of a preset range and the vehicle is moving at a speed that is below a preset threshold." (Bevins, col. 2, ll. 7-12; see also Abst.; col. 2, ll. 55-59; col. 5, ll. 19-21; col. 6, ll. 13-17). Indeed, the Specification of the '587 patent states that one condition where movement of a vehicle may be unsafe is when "[a] driver leaves a vehicle, or is otherwise not in a position to safely operate the vehicle," and that sensors include "pressure-sensing operator's seat sensor" as well as other sensors (col. 2, ll. 34-39; col. 5, ll. 5-25). We agree with the Examiner that "the sensors as discussed in the Grounds of rejections are the same types of sensors described in the specification of the patent-at-hand" (RAN 27). Hence, we affirm Rejection 1. Rejection 2: Matsuo The Examiner finds that Matsuo discloses a parking brake system with a controller that receives input from numerous sensors including a brake fluid level sensor, a vehicle speed sensor, a gear position sensor, an accelerator pedal sensor, a brake pedal sensor, and a gradient sensor for detecting the gradient of the road on which the vehicle rests (RAN 3-4 incorporating by reference Request 18-19, Appendix 19-26; see also Matsuo, col. 4, ll. 5-23). The Examiner finds that Matsuo's controller controls the brake, applying or releasing the parking brake based on the sensed gradient, for example, and further teaches that "no control over the Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 17 parking brake is effected …when the vehicle speed is greater than the preset level." (RAN 4; Matsuo, Abst.; col. 4, ll. 19-23, 34-37; col. 5, ll. 24-26). The Patent Owner argues the various rejected claims together and contends that Examiner has not explained how the brake fluid level sensor of Matsuo is utilized in accordance with the language of the claim (App. Br. 22). However, the Examiner's rejection is based on Matsuo's disclosure of a braking system that utilizes a signal from a gradient sensor and a vehicle speed sensor, as well as other sensors, 19 to control application and releasing of the parking brake. The Patent Owner does not submit arguments pertinent to the Examiner's rejection. Hence, we affirm Rejection 2. Rejection 4: Deitchman The Examiner finds that Deitchman discloses a braking apparatus with a door switch, the braking apparatus using the door switch signal to maintain brake pressure for a determined time after a door (for example, of a school bus) is closed to allow people to move away from bus and avoid injury (RAN 6-7 incorporating by reference Request 21-22, Appendix 34- 42; see also Deitchman, Abst.; col. 1, ll. 53-65; col. 3, ll. 17-21, 42-48; col. 4, ll. 7-13; col. 8, ll. 45-50). The Examiner further finds that Deitchman discloses a sensor for determining vehicle speed which prevents operation of the brakes when the vehicle is traveling above a predetermined speed (RAN 6; see also Deitchman, Abst.; col. 2, ll. 21-23, 30-33; col. 7, ll. 32-38, 50- 56). 19 In this regard, Matsuo satisfies the language of the claims rejected even if the Patent Owner's interpretation which requires a plurality of sensors in addition to a vehicle motion sensor is applied. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 18 The Patent Owner argues the various rejected claims together and contends that because the sensor for determining vehicle speed is not a sensor for indicating a condition unsafe for vehicle movement, Deitchman only discloses "a single sensor for indicating a condition that might be considered to be unsafe." (App. Br. 23). Hence, the Patent Owner's argument is premised on the claim interpretation issue of whether the claims require a plurality of sensors in addition to a speed sensor. As discussed supra, we are not persuaded by the Patent Owner and agree with the Examiner's interpretation. Correspondingly, we affirm Rejection 4. Rejection 5: Graham The Examiner finds that Graham discloses a safety back-up system which automatically applies the brakes, the safety back-up system using sensors for detecting rearward movement and a driver seat switch to actuate the brakes if the driver is out of the vehicle so as to prevent vehicle runaway accidents (RAN 7-8 incorporating by reference Request 22-24, Appendix 43-55; see also Graham, Abst.; col. 2, ll. 16-22; col. 4, ll. 21-23, 54-60; col 8, ll. 33-62). The Examiner also finds that Graham discloses such a safety back-up system that prevents actuation of the brake when the vehicle is moving above a predetermined speed (RAN 7-8; see also Graham, col. 2, ll. 42-50; col. 4, l. 62-col. 5, l. 4; col 7, ll. 14-19). The Patent Owner argues the various rejected claims together and points out that Graham discloses a safety system for garbage trucks that applies the brakes to stop reverse movement when an attendant is not at the rear of the vehicle (App. Br. 23-24). The Patent Owner asserts that Graham Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 19 does not disclose controller that actuates the brakes in response to a plurality of sensors indicating a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement, or does not actuate the brakes if the vehicle motion sensor signals that the vehicle is moving above a certain speed (id.). While the Patent Owner is not incorrect in observing that Graham discloses an invention in which an attendant provides an override signal to not actuate the system, the Patent Owner overlooks the disclosure in Graham further describing an additional subsystem wherein "[a] driver seat switch may be included, independent of the driver's override switch, for also applying the brakes if the driver leaves the seat while the vehicle is stationary, moving backward or moving slowly forward." (Graham, Abst., col. 4, l. 54-col. 5, l. 4). The driver seat sensor indicates a condition unsafe for vehicle movement, Graham specifically teaching that the driver seat switch senses if the driver is out of the vehicle to thereby actuate the brakes so as to prevent vehicle runaway accidents (Graham, Abst.; col. 4, ll. 54-60). The Patent Owner's additional argument based on the claim interpretation issue of whether the claims require a plurality of sensors in addition to a speed sensor is unpersuasive for the reasons already discussed. Furthermore, contrary to the assertion of the Patent Owner, as the Examiner finds, Graham discloses preventing actuation of the brake when the vehicle is moving above a predetermined speed (Graham, col. 2, ll. 42-50; col. 4, l. 62-col. 5, l. 4; col 7, ll. 14-19). Therefore, we affirm Rejection 5. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 20 Rejection 9: Buschmann The Examiner finds that Buschmann discloses a hydraulic brake system including a controller having sensors that provide input data such as vehicle speed, brake pedal application, drive torque, starting of the ignition, and actuation of the parking brake to allow the controller to adjust brake pressure in conditions such as inclined roadway and starting uphill (RAN 10-11 incorporating by reference Request 28-29, Appendix 81-90; see also Buschmann, Abst.; col. 1, ll. 50-60). The Examiner also finds that the brake system of Buschman takes into consideration vehicle speed and whether engine is on or off via sensors, and actuates the brakes only when the vehicle speed is below a limit value (RAN 11; see also Buschmann, Abst; col. 1, ll. 50-65; col. 3, ll. 50-53; col. 4, ll. 14-19). The Patent Owner argues the various rejected claims together and contends that portion of Buschmann relied upon "describes determining vehicle speed, brake pedal application, drive torque and operating condition of a vehicle to control the brake system to make it easier for a driver to retain the vehicle on an inclined roadway and start uphill" and thus, provides a "hill holding" function for driver convenience (App. Br. 26). The Patent Owner's argument is without merit. The claimed invention of the subject '587 patent is to provide a safety system that actuates the brakes if monitored conditions indicate that vehicle movement is unsafe. The brake system of Buschmann utilizes input data from a plurality of sensors in addition to vehicle speed to provide a hill holding functionality which is a safety feature that "prevent[s] crashes caused by inattentiveness, clutch damages due to operator errors, etc." as disclosed in Buschmann Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 21 (Buschmann, col. 1, ll. 14-19). 20 The improved safety and desirability of preventing a vehicle from rolling backwards on an incline cannot be reasonably disputed. Thus, we affirm Rejection 9. Rejections 12, 14, 15 and 19 Rejections 12, 14, 15 and 19 are based on one of the anticipatory references discussed supra (Matsuo, Deitchman, Graham and Buschmann, respectively) but further rely on either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin to satisfy limitation of these claims requiring a signal validation circuit which validates signals from sensors only if the signals are uninterrupted for a predetermined period of time (see, e.g., RAN 13 incorporating by reference Request 32-37, Appendix 110-155). The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have measured the signals for an uninterrupted time period as taught by either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin" in the various prior art braking systems to validate the signal based on the teachings of either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin (see, e.g. RAN 14). Fontaine The Examiner finds that Fontaine discloses a parking brake system where if the driver leaves the driver's seat while the engine is running, seat switch 33 opens to apply the brakes (RAN 13, see also Fontaine, Abst.; col. 4, ll. 51-58). The Examiner also finds that Fontaine discloses a delay circuit 20 In this regard, Buschmann satisfies the language of the claims rejected even if the Patent Owner's interpretation which requires a plurality of sensors in addition to a vehicle motion sensor is applied. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 22 32 for the parking brake system which requires the seat switch to be open for 2 to 3 seconds before actuation so as to not actuate when the driver is off of the seat temporarily such as in rough terrain (RAN 13; see also Fontaine, col. 4, ll. 51-64). The Patent Owner argues these rejections that rely on Fontaine, and the claims subjected to these rejections, together. The Patent Owner contends that Fontaine "discloses a system wherein after a predetermined time delay has elapsed (determined by a time delay circuit) after a seat switch has been opened, an actuator piston will move to a brake-applying position" but "does not teach that this delay period functions as a signal validation circuit that validates that the seat switch signals are real conditions, as opposed to signals from spurious noise from electrical interference or a faulty switch." (App. Br. 28). The Patent Owner asserts that "Fontaine simply delays a signal that is presumed valid." (Id.). We are not persuaded by the Patent Owner's arguments. The claim language at issue recites "a signal validation circuit that validates signals from the sensors for acceptance by the controller only if the signals arrive at the controller, uninterrupted, for a predetermined minimum duration of time." (See claim 8). As to the recited signal validation circuit, the Specification of the '587 patent states To provide a measure of protection against false setting of the brakes caused by noise, a "loose" switch, a defective switch, and etc., a circuit has been included in the controller that requires that a sensor signal be present, without interruption, for between 0.5 seconds to 1.25 second before it will recognize it a valid signal and latch the brakes. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 23 This delay time is common to all sensor inputs except the low- pressure sensor, which is instantaneous and can only exist when the pressure switch has indeed opened from lack of pressure. (Col. 16, ll. 50-61; see also col. 6, ll. 18-22; col. 14, l. 66-col. 15, l. 3). Neither the claim language nor the Specification of the '587 patent restricts the meaning of "signal validation circuit" to a circuit that exclusively protects against electrical interference or a faulty switch to the exclusion of protecting against other situations in which the sensors may not be accurately representing a condition that is unsafe for vehicle movement. In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. The claim language at issue merely requires a circuit, which requires a continuous signal for a predetermined period of time. The parking brake system of Fontaine satisfies the language of the claim because it requires the seat switch to be open for 2 to 3 seconds in order for the brakes to be applied thereby providing a delay time (Fontaine, col. 4, ll. 51-64). Therefore, we affirm Rejections 12, 14, 15 and 19 relying on Fontaine as a secondary reference. Gillberg The Examiner finds that Gillberg discloses a means to filter a signal wherein an electric signal is sampled to determine its duration. If the duration of the signal is shorter than a predetermined sampling period, the signal is treated as noise, but if the duration is longer, then the signal is treated as a valid signal (RAN 14; see also Gillberg, col. 1, ll. 6-23, 39-46). In particular, Gillberg teaches the desirability of adding an electronic delay circuit to mechanical switches to filter out "transient, noise or bounce Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 24 present on an input line" "before the system responds to an erroneous input." (Gillberg, col. 1, ll. 6-23). The Patent Owner argues that Gillberg disclosure "is inconsistent with the concept of validation" because signals that are never received at the controller are not validated (App. Br. 29). The Patent Owner also argues that Gillberg also merely uses a discrete time system which samples a sensor signal at discrete intervals based on a clock cycle (App. Br. 29). We are not persuaded by the Patent Owner's arguments. As noted, the claim language at issue recites "a signal validation circuit that validates signals from the sensors for acceptance by the controller only if the signals arrive at the controller, uninterrupted, for a predetermined minimum duration of time." (See claim 8). Hence, according to the claim language, the controller accepts the validated signal, not the signals that are not validated. While the Patent Owner argues that in Gillberg, the contoller does not receive a signal not validated, the Patent Owner's argument overlooks the fact that the Examiner's rejection is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to "measure[] the signals for an uninterrupted time period as taught by [] Gillberg" to validate the signal (RAN 14), and does not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The rejections are not premised on providing some component with the "transient signal suppression circuit" of Gillberg that is separate and distinct from the controller of the primary reference (Matsuo, Deitchman, Graham and Buschmann), but rather, Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 25 modifying such controllers to provide signal validation as suggested by Gillberg. In addition, while the Patent Owner observes that Gillberg uses discrete time system to sample the signal, nothing in the claims specifies a specific method or technique that must be used to validate the signal so as to preclude use of sampling techniques for this purpose. It is not even evident where the Specification of the '587 patent discloses a particular manner or technique that must be used to validate a signal, or preclude use of sampling techniques. All that required by the claim language is signal validation by determining that the signal is uninterrupted for a predetermined minimum duration of time, which is what Gillberg teaches as being desirable. Therefore, we also affirm Rejections 12, 14, 15 and 19 relying on Gillberg as a secondary reference. Kolodin In view of our affirmance of Rejections 12, 14, 15 and 19 relying on Fontain, or alternatively on Gillberg, we decline to reach these rejections relying on Kolodin. Rejections 22-25 Rejections 22-25 reject various dependent claims and are based on one of Bevins, Deitchman, 21 or Buschmann, 22 in combination with Morita. 21 Rejection 24 was based on either Deitchman or Donatelle in combination with Morita. We decline to opine as to the Examiner's rejection based on Donatelle. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 26 The Examiner relies on Morita for disclosing a manual override feature finding that Morita discloses an apparatus for automatically engaging a parking brake that includes a RESET position wherein the parking brake is forcibly released (see, RAN 21-23; see also Morita col. 3, ll. 49-57). The Examiner concludes, for example, with respect to Bevins, that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art [to] have utilized a manual override in the system of Bevins in view of the teaching of Morita as an additional safety enhancement." (RAN 22). The Patent Owner argues the various rejected claims together and merely asserts that Morita does not "cure any of the deficiencies of the cited references." (App. Br. 30). Hence, because we do not find any deficiencies with respect to the Examiner's rejections based on Bevins, Deitchman, or Buschmann, we affirm Rejections 22-25. Rejections 26 and 29 Rejections 26 and 29 are based on Deitchman or Buschmann in combination with either Fontaine, Gillberg or Kolodin, and in further view of Morita. The Examiner relies on Morita for disclosing a manual override feature and concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art [to] have utilized a manual override in view of the teaching of Morita as an additional safety enhancement." (See, e.g., RAN 23-25; see also Morita, col. 3, ll. 49-57). 22 Rejection 25 was based on either Buschmann or Wise in combination with Morita. We decline to opine as to the Examiner's rejection based on Wise. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 27 The Patent Owner argues the various rejected claims together and merely asserts that Morita does not "cure any of the deficiencies of the cited references." (App. Br. 30). Hence, because we do not find any deficiencies with respect to the Examiner's rejections based on Deitchman or Buschmann in combination with either Fontaine or Gillberg, we affirm Rejections 26 and 29. Rejections 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30 and 31 In view of the various Rejections that have been affirmed for the reasons discussed supra, each reexamined claim of the '587 patent has been rejected under at least three different Rejections. Thus, we decline to reach Rejections 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, and 31. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Examiner did not err in interpreting the limitations "plurality of sensors" and "wherein one said of plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor." 2. The Examiner did not err in concluding that it would have been obvious to provide a signal validation circuit that validates signals from the sensors if the signals arrive at the controller, uninterrupted for a predetermined minimum duration of time. ORDERS 1. Rejections 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 24-26 and 29 are AFFIRMED. Appeal 2013-010316 Reexamination Control 95/001,449 Patent US 6,450,587 B2 28 2. We do not reach Rejections 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, and 31. Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. AFFIRMED PATENT OWNER: Howison & Arnott, L.L.P. P.O. Box 741715 Dallas, TX 75374-1715 THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP One Broadway New York, NY 10004 PL initials:cu Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation