Ex Parte Baehrle-Miller et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2019

15189740 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/189,740 06/22/2016
10800 7590 03/22/2019
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
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.
2178-1584 5521
EXAMINER
BOWES, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2019 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
Ex parte FRANK BAEHRLE-MILLER and DIETER BLATTERT
Appeal2018-006722
Application 15/189, 7 40
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Robert Bosch GmbH ("Appellant") is the Applicant and is identified as the
real party in interest. 37 C.F.R. § 1.46; Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006722
Application 15/189,740
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's "disclosure relates to a method for checking the braking
force in a vehicle in which both a vehicle hydraulic brake having a braking
force booster as well as an electromechanical braking device having an
electric brake motor adjust a brake piston so as to generate a braking force."
Spec. 1.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative, and
reads:
1. A method for operating a brake system that
produces a braking force in a vehicle, comprising:
generating the braking force with a brake piston by both
(i) actuating a vehicle hydraulic brake having a braking force
booster, the vehicle hydraulic brake having a prevailing
hydraulic pressure acting on the brake piston, and (ii) actuating
an electromechanical braking device having an electric brake
motor that acts on the brake piston;
determining a hydraulic reference volume from the
prevailing hydraulic pressure based on a known pressure-volume
correlation of the vehicle hydraulic brake;
actuating the electric brake motor to move the brake piston
and produce a corresponding hydraulic braking medium volume
change in the vehicle hydraulic brake;
comparing the hydraulic braking medium volume change
with the hydraulic reference volume so as to evaluate the braking
force; and
generating an error signal in the event of an impermissibly
high deviation between the hydraulic braking medium volume
change and the hydraulic reference volume.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-006722
Application 15/189,740
REJECTI0NS 2
Claims 1, 6-8, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as
anticipated by Matsuura (US 2016/0046274 Al, published Feb. 18, 2016).
Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Matsuura and Kokubo (US 2007 /0228823 Al, published
Oct. 4, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Matsuura (Claims 1, 6-8, and 11-16)
As for claims 1, 14, and 15, the Examiner finds that Matsuura
discloses a method for operating a braking system comprising actuating a
vehicle hydraulic brake (fluid pressure supply device 22) having a braking
force booster (hydraulic pump 37), actuating an electromechanical braking
device (master cylinder 8, electric booster 16) having an electric brake motor
( electric motor 1 7) that acts on the brake piston, and comparing the
hydraulic braking medium volume change with the hydraulic reference
volume so as to evaluate the braking force. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Matsuura
,r,r 45, 61, 66); see also id. at 5-7; Matsuura Figs. 1-2. The Examiner
determines that Matsuura's hydraulic pump 37 corresponds to the claimed
braking force booster because Appellant's Specification discloses that "[i]n
accordance with an alternative embodiment, the braking force booster is the
hydraulic pump of the electronic stability program." Ans. 3 (citing Spec. 7,
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter; and the rejection of
claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2), as anticipated by Matsuura. See
Ans. 3; Final Act. 2-3.
3
Appeal2018-006722
Application 15/189,740
,r 1 ). The Examiner states, "[a] brake booster is anything that increases the
final braking force. It does not have to act on the master cylinder." Id. at 3-
4 ( emphasis added).
Appellant contends Matsussra's hydraulic pump 37 in fluid pressure
supply device 22 is not a "braking force booster" as this term would be
understood in the art. Appeal Br. 15.
We agree with Appellant. As for the meaning of the term "braking
force booster," the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term "is an
interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his
invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with
the specification."' In re Smith International, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
( citation and internal quotation marks omitted); In re Suit co Surface, 603
F.3d 1255, 1259---60 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Here, the Examiner's interpretation
of "breaking force booster" as "anything that increases the final braking
force [ and] does not have to act on the master cylinder" is an interpretation
that does not correspond with what and how Appellant describes its
invention in the Specification, i.e., an interpretation that is not consistent
with the Specification.
As Appellant explains, the Specification describes, "[a] braking force
booster [ 1 OJ is located between the brake pedal 6 and the master brake
cylinder 4, said braking force booster comprising an electric motor that
preferably actuates the master cylinder 4 by way of a gearing
(iBooster)." Appeal Br. 15 (citing Spec. 10:4--7); see also Spec. Fig. 1.
Although the Specification describes, "[i]n accordance with an alternative
embodiment, the braking force booster is the hydraulic pump," the
4
Appeal2018-006722
Application 15/189,740
Specification discloses that, in this alternative embodiment, "the hydraulic
pump [is] of the electronic stability program." Spec. 7:8-9, (emphasis
added). The Specification further discloses that "an electric stability
program (ESP)" is an "addition" to "the vehicle hydraulic brake." Spec.
7:4--5. Consistent with the recitation of "a vehicle hydraulic brake having a
braking force booster" in claim 1 ( emphasis added), and the above-noted
description in the Specification of the braking force booster as actuating the
master cylinder, we construe the claimed term "braking force booster" to be
part of the vehicle hydraulic brake and to actuate a master cylinder.
As Appellant points out, Matsuura already discloses a braking force
booster, that is, "electric booster 16" shown in Figure 1. Appeal Br. 15-16;
see also Matsuura Fig. 1; ,r 26. Regarding this disclosure in Matsuura, we
note "[p ]rior art references may be 'indicative of what all those skilled in the
art generally believe a certain term means ... [and] can often help to
demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art."' In re
Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). "Accordingly, the
PTO' s interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts
with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous
art." Id. Here, we agree with Appellant that a skilled artisan would not
consider Matsuura's hydraulic pump 37 as a braking force booster, at least
because Matsuura demonstrates that electric booster 16, rather than pump
37, comprises an electric motor 16 that actuates a master cylinder 8. Appeal
Br. 15-16; see also Matsuura Fig. 1. Thus, the Examiner's finding that
Matsuura's hydraulic pump 37 corresponds to the claimed braking force
5
Appeal2018-006722
Application 15/189,740
booster is premised on an unreasonable claim construction, and thus, is not
supported by the preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant also contends Matsuura fails to disclose the step of
"comparing the hydraulic braking medium volume change with the
hydraulic reference volume so as to evaluate the braking force," as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 18. Claims 14 and 15 recite a similar limitation. Id. at
26-27.
We agree. The Examiner determines Matsuura discloses comparing
hydraulic volumes because "[ c ]omparing the volume-pressure characteristics
as described in Matsuura ([0066--0068]) requires knowledge of both the
volume and pressure." Ans. 5. Matsuura discloses "measur[ing] or
determin[ing] a fluid volume-pressure characteristic of the pipe-lines,"
"transmitting a predetermined volume of brake fluid" (Matsuura ,r 61 ), and
detecting pressure (id. ,r,r 66-68). The Examiner does not, however, direct
us to any disclosure in Matsuura that establishes a second volume is
determined or measured. As such, the Examiner's finding that Matsuura
discloses "comparing the hydraulic braking medium volume change with the
hydraulic reference volume," as claimed, is not supported by the
preponderance of the evidence.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 14,
and 15, and of claims 6-8, 11-13, and 16 depending therefrom, as
anticipated by Matsuura.
Obviousness over Matsuura and Kokubo (Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10)
The Examiner relies on Kokubo as disclosing implementing a braking
method when a vehicle is at a standstill. Final Act. 8. Thus, the Examiner's
reliance on Kokubo in rejecting dependent claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 does not
6
Appeal2018-006722
Application 15/189,740
cure the deficiencies of the rejection of parent claim 1. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over Matsuura
and Kokubo.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1 and 4--16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) or under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
7