Ex Parte Bale et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2007

10672625 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication in and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte PAUL BALE, ROBERT DAVID PRESCOTT, PETER NILSSON,
and ANDERS LINDQVIST
___________

Appeal No. 2006-3054
Application No. 10/672,625
Technology Center 3600
___________

HEARD: February 8, 2007
___________

Decided: March 22, 2007
___________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and STUART S. LEVY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §134 from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 to 20, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

Appellants invented a brake system for heavy vehicles.
An understanding of the subject matter on appeal can be gleaned from reading
representative claims 1 and 2 which are reproduced below:
1. A brake system for a heavy vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of brake components;
at least one vehicle performance sensor;
a central control unit receiving sensor signals from said at least one
vehicle performance sensor and generating central control signals for controlling
said plurality of brake components based on the received sensor signals;
a distributed electronic control unit receiving sensor signals from said at
least one vehicle performance sensor and generating local control signals for
controlling only some of said plurality of brake components based on the received
sensor signals; and
a conflict resolution scheme for resolving conflicts between the central
control signals and the local control signals.
2. The brake system of Claim 1 wherein said central control unit comprises:
a first control scheme used by said central control unit for generating
first central control signals;
a second control scheme used by said central control unit for generating
second central control signals; and
a central control unit conflict resolution scheme used by said central
control unit for resolving conflicts between the first and second central control
signals.
The examiner has rejected claims 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph for failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Specifically, the
examiner contends that the appellants’ specification does not enable a person or
ordinary skill in the art to make or use a “control scheme” or a “conflict scheme.”
2
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

The Appellants contend that a person or ordinary skill in the art would have
been enabled by reading the specification to make and use the claimed control
scheme and conflict scheme.
The examiner has rejected claims 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Phoenix because the examiner finds that Phoenix discloses each and
every element of claims 1 to 20.
The Appellants contend that Phoenix does not disclose a conflict resolution
scheme as recited in claims 1 and 5. Appellants also contend that Phoenix does not
disclose a manual input for overriding the central control signals and the local
central control signals, as recited in claim 6, or electrical energy for use in
actuating a brake component as recited in claim 8.
ISSUES
The first issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the examiner erred
in holding that the specification would not have enabled a person of ordinary skill
in the art to make and use a control scheme and a conflict resolution scheme.
The second issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the examiner
erred in finding that Phoenix discloses a conflict resolution scheme.
The third issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the examiner erred
in finding that Phoenix discloses a manual input for overriding the central control
signals and local control signals.
The fifth issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the examiner erred
in finding that Phoenix discloses electrical energy for use in actuating the brake
component.

3
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants’ invention is a brake system for heavy vehicles that includes a
central control unit which receives signals from a vehicle performance sensor and
generates a central control signal for controlling a plurality of brake components
based on the received sensor signal [0012]. A distributed electronic control
receives sensor signals from a vehicle performance sensor a generates a local
control signal for only some of the brake components based on the received sensor
signal [0018]. In the invention of claim 1 there is also included a conflict
resolution scheme for resolving conflicts between the central control signal and the
local control signal [0010].
In the invention of claim 2, the central control unit includes a first control
scheme to generate a first central control signal and a second control scheme to
generate a second central control signal [0014]. There is also a central control unit
conflict resolution scheme for resolving conflicts between the first and second
central control schemes [0025].
A control scheme is defined by the specification as a plurality of rules
concerning actuation of actuators in response to various sensor signals [0038]. The
control schemes may relate to the brake system, emergency brake system,
suspension system, anti-lock braking system, shock-absorbing system or safety
system. For example, the specification describes a safety control scheme as one or
more rules that direct safety requirements imposed by a government body allowing
these mandated rules to be incorporated into the overall control scheme. It is well
known to include control schemes in vehicle. For instance, it is well known to
include an anti-lock braking control scheme with the rule that if wheel slippage is
sensed, a pulsed control signal is generated for the brake actuators.
4
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

A conflict resolution scheme is defined by the specification as a sheme
which resolve conflicts between two control schemes [0040]. The conflict
resolution scheme has rules concerning how to resolve conflicts between control
schemes. The specification discloses:
These conflict control rules may be absolute(e.g., “Safety
scheme rules are always given priority over actuator
control scheme rules.”), or may depend upon sensed
conditions of the vehicle (e.g., “When condition A is
sensed, the rule contained in actuator control scheme X is
given priority over the rule contained in actuator control
scheme Y”).[0040]

. . . conflict rules help resolve conflicts at the control
level. With such a system, for example, inherent
conflicts existing between antilock braking, traction,
manual inputs/outputs, and other vehicle dynamics
schemes no longer lead to “lost” or cycling braking
systems creating a safety hazard [0041].

A person of ordinary skill in the art would be informed by this language of
the specification how to make and use a conflict resolution scheme.
Phoenix discloses an electronic braking control system which includes, as
depicted in Figure 1, a plurality of brake components 20, a vehicle performance
sensor or wheel speed sensor 26, and a central control unit 10 (col. 5, line 54 to col.
6, lines 5). The central control unit 10 receives sensor signals from the sensors 26
and generates a control signal for controlling the brake components 20 (Figure 3).
A distributed electronic control unit 16 also receives the sensor signals from the
vehicle sensors 26 and controls some of the brake components 20. In operation,
the central controller 10 controls the brake components by receiving signals from
the sensors 26 through line 26 and through delay 44a. The central control unit 10
5
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

calculates the appropriate brake pressure in view of the driver demand and the
wheel speed sensor 26 (col. 6, lines 33 to 35). ABS logic 40 in central control unit
10 contains rules for controlling the pressure in the brakes when a skid is detected.
When the wheels skid, ABS logic 40 responds by reducing the demanded pressure
Pa (pressure dump) transmitted to the local control 16 (col. 6, lines 11 to 19).
Therefore, the rule of the ABS logic for operation of the brakes is: when a skid is
detected, generate a signal for a pressure dump. However, the application of this
ABS logic 40 is delayed by delays 44a and 44b which would result in the brake
pressure response to the wheel skid being late. Therefore, Phoenix discloses:
Simple skid detection logic 46 within the valve controller
16 monitors the wheel speed S’ and can generate a
pressure dump signal Pd which will override for a limited
period the brake pressure demand Pa communicated from
the master controller 10 to a brake pressure control
element 48 which supplies the pressure control signals Pc
for the brake actuator 22 (not shown in Fig. 3) [col. 6,
lines 53 to 59].

The rules for controlling the pressure in the brakes when a skid is detected
for both the central controller 10 and the distributed controller 16 is to generate a
signal for a pressure dump. As such, both the central controller 10 and the
distributed controller 16 have the same control scheme in the event of a wheel skid.
However, when a skid is detected the distributed controller 16 is capable of
overriding the signal Pa coming from the central controller by its own signal Pd to
compensate for delay as discussed above.
The system of Phoenix includes a brake pedal, release of pressure on which
overrides the central control signal and the local control signal.
6
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

Phoenix does not disclose a source of electrical power for use in actuating
the brake component.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An analysis of whether the claims under appeal are supported by an
enabling disclosure requires a determination of whether that disclosure contained
sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the appealed claims as to
enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The
test for enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make and use the
claimed invention from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art
without undue experimentation. See United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d
778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1954
(1989); In re Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343, 1345, 188 USPQ 659, 661 (CCPA 1976).
In order to make a rejection, the examiner has the initial burden to establish
a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention.
See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-62, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (examiner must provide a reasonable explanation as to why the scope of
protection provided by a claim is not adequately enabled by the disclosure). A
disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and
using an invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing
and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as being in
compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
unless there is a reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained
therein which must be relied on for enabling support. Assuming that sufficient
reason for such doubt exists, a rejection for failure to teach how to make and/or use
7
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

will be proper on that basis. See In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ
367, 369 (CCPA 1971). As stated by the court, "it is incumbent upon the Patent
Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to explain why it doubts the
truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up
assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent
with the contested statement. Otherwise, there would be no need for the applicant
to go to the trouble and expense of supporting his presumptively accurate
disclosure." In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 224, 169 USPQ at 370.

ANALYSIS

Enablement Issue
In our view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know of various
control schemes which are present in vehicles and would know how to make a
control scheme without undue experimentation.
The specification discloses a conflict resolution scheme in a manner that
would enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention
without undue experimentation.

Anticipation Issue
Phoenix discloses that when a skid occurs there may be a delay in the
application of the skid control by central controller 10. This delay results in the
signal Pa not being in accordance with the skid control scheme rules for some
period of time. In Phoenix, there is also a distributed electronic control unit 16
which generates a signal Pd which is immediately in accordance with the skid
8
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

control skid. Phoenix teaches that when the central control signal Pa signal is in
conflict with the Pd signal because of a delay, the conflict is resolved by the Pd
signal overriding the Pa signal. As such, Phoenix does disclose the conflict
resolution scheme recited in claim 1.
However, because the control schemes for the central control unit 10 and the
distributed control unit 16 are the same there is no conflict resolution scheme that
resolved conflicts between conflicting control schemes. As such, Phoenix does not
disclose the conflict resolution scheme recited in claims 2 to 5, 7, and 10 to 20.
Phoenix does disclose the invention of claim 6, which is dependent on claim
1 by disclosing a brake pedal that is a manual override to the central control signal
and the distributed electronic central signal. However, Phoenix does not disclose,
as recited in claim 8, electrical energy for use in actuating the brake component.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The appellants have shown that the examiner erred in holding that
appellants’ specification failed to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to
make a brake system that includes control schemes and a conflict resolution
scheme.
The appellants have failed to establish that the examiner erred in holding
that Phoenix disclosed a conflict resolution scheme that resolves conflicts between
the central control signals and local signals, as recited in claim 1. As appellants
have not argued the separate patentability of claims 7 and therefore this claim
stands or falls with claim 1 from which it depends.
9
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

The appellants have shown that the examiner erred in finding that Phoenix
discloses a conflict resolution scheme that resolves conflicts between conflicting
control schemes and recited in claims 2 to 5, 10 to 20.
The appellants have not shown that the examiner erred in finding that
Phoenix discloses a manual input to override the central control signal and the
distributed local control signal.
The appellants have shown that the examiner erred in finding that Phoenix
discloses an electrical energy for use in actuating the brake component.

10
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

ORDER
The examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph of claims 1
to 20 is not sustained. The examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6 and 7, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is sustained. The examiner’s rejection of claims 2 to 5, and 7
to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § is not sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
11
Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625

ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC
986 BEDFORD STREET
STAMFORD, CT 06905-5619

MEC/jrg
12