Ex Parte Baehrle-Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14381183 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/381,183 08/26/2014
24972 7590 09/26/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Baehrle-Miller
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BOSC.P8741US/l 1603832 8048
EXAMINER
LANE, NICHOLAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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 FRANK BAEHRLE-MILLER, DIETER BLATTERT,
and TOBIAS PUTZER
Appeal 2017-011264
Application 14/3 81, 183
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-011264
Application 14/3 81, 183
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 15-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims are directed generally "to a method for providing
the application force generated by a parking brake in a vehicle." Spec. 1, 11.
1-2. Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
15. A method for providing an application force generated by
a parking brake in a vehicle, the parking brake including at least
an electromechanical brake device having an electric brake
motor for generating at least a portion of the application force by
pressing a brake piston against a brake disk the method
compnsmg:
performing a first tensioning process in which the electric
brake motor is activated to press the brake piston; and
initiating a retensioning process in which the electric brake
motor is reactivated again following the first tensioning process,
wherein the retensioning process is terminated if one of a
rotational speed of the motor or a variable correlating with the
rotational speed of the motor drops below an assigned specified
limit value.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Straub
Watanabe
Baehrle-Miller
ITO
US 2009/0305848 Al Dec. 10, 2009
US 2011/0153147 Al Jun. 23, 2011
US 2011/0224880 Al Sep. 15, 2011
US 2012/0085599 Al Apr. 12, 2012
2
Appeal2017-011264
Application 14/3 81, 183
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 15-20, 25, and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ito and Baehrle-Miller. Ans. 2.
Claims 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ito, Baehrle-Miller, and Watanabe. Id.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ito, Baehrle-Miller, and Straub. Id.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 27 is
improper because Baehrle-Miller fails to teach the claimed termination of
the clamping force as asserted by the Examiner. See, e.g., Reply Br. 2-3.
More specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner is incorrect in the
assertion "that the change from supplying an increasing current to supplying
a constant current discloses terminating a tensioning process." Reply Br. 2.
Without explaining how, the Examiner merely states that "Baehrle-Miller
was cited as teaching 'a tensioning process is terminated ... if the rotational
speed of the motor drops below an assigned specified limit value (see ,r,r
0014, 022)."' Ans. 3.
Appellants are correct that the teaching referenced by the Examiner
does not disclose terminating the tensioning force, but merely teaches
ceasing to increase the tensioning force. Baehrle-Miller still applies a
tensioning force, it just stops increasing and moves to a constant state. As
such, we disagree that Baehrle-Miller teaches the claimed termination as
asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
3
Appeal2017-011264
Application 14/3 81, 183
rejection of independent claims 15 and 27 or the claims dependent
therefrom. Neither Watanabe nor Straub cures this deficiency.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 15-2 9.
REVERSED
4