Ex Parte Baumann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201711578424 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017) 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. 11/578,424 07/03/2007 Karl-Heinz Baumann 095309.58351US 3307 23911 7590 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 14300 WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300 EXAMINER LI, CE LI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2017 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): edocket @ crowell. com tche @ crowell. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KARL-HEINZ BAUMANN, MICHAEL FEHRING, and RAINER JUSTEN Appeal 2016-001583 Application 11/578,4241 Technology Center 3600 Before JASON MORGAN, HUNG H. BUI, and AMBER HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 12—17, 21—24, 30, and 31, all of which are pending on appeal. Claims 18—20 and 25—29 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1. Claims 1—11 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Daimler AG. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 8, 2015 (“Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed September 9, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed November 4, 2014 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed October 13,2006 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2016-001583 Application 11/578,424 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “a vehicle occupant protection system [shown in Figure 1] and a method for actuating a vehicle occupant protection device in a vehicle.”.” Spec. 12; Abstract. Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. 8-rate Oyf As shown in Figure 1, vehicle occupant protection system 1 includes vehicle occupant protection device 2 (e.g., electric adjustable sun roof, window lifter (Spec. 116)) activated if a collision is imminent; control device 3 arranged to activate vehicle occupant protection device 2 based on a defined event (i.e., the necessary braking deceleration is above a predefined threshold value to avoid a collision); environment sensor system 2 Appeal 2016-001583 Application 11/578,424 4 including distance sensor 5 used to detect distances from objects surrounding a vehicle; and driving state sensor system 7 coupled to wheel speed sensor 8 to determine the speed, including braking deceleration of a vehicle. Spec ^fl[ 30-32. In another example embodiment, Appellants’ Specification describes: it is possible to provide for the braking deceleration which is initiated by a driver to be determined and compared with the determined necessary braking deceleration. The vehicle occupant protection device may be actuated or activated if the difference between the braking decelerations is above a predefined second threshold value. Spec. 119. According to the Specification, “if a deviation occurs [the determined necessary braking deceleration is compared with the braking deceleration applied by the driver] which exceeds a predefined [second] threshold value, it is possible to provide that both the vehicle occupant protection device 2 and the brake system 9 are actuated.” Spec. 133. Claim 12—the only independent claim—is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 12. A method for actuating a vehicle occupant protection device in a vehicle, comprising: sensing a distance from an obstacle to the vehicle; determining a braking deceleration which is necessary to avoid a collision with the obstacle; determining whether a predefined event has occurred, based on the determined necessary braking deceleration; and actuating the vehicle occupant protection device when the predefined event occurs; determining whether an abort condition for deactivation of the vehicle occupant protection device has occurred, based on an activation state of an accelerator pedal in the vehicle; [1] wherein activation of a brake control by a driver of the vehicle is a precondition for the determination of the 3 Appeal 2016-001583 Application 11/578,424 necessary braking deceleration or for the determination of the occurrence of the predefined event; [2] wherein the vehicle occupant protection device is deactivated when the abort condition occurs; and [3] wherein [3 a] the vehicle occupant protection device is actuated when a first threshold value of braking deceleration is exceeded, and [3b] a braking force which is necessary for target braking, which is an amount of braking that stops the vehicle at a predefined distance from the obstacle, is produced simultaneously with the actuation of the vehicle occupant protection device. App. Br. A-l (Claims App’x.) (bracketing added) Examiner’s Rejections and References (1) Claims 12—17, 21—24, and 30-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)or35U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2—3. (2) Claims 12—17, 21—24, and 30-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 3^4. (3) Claims 12—17, 21—24, and 30-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marc Bommer et al. (DE 10121956 Cl; published Nov. 28, 2002; “Marc”), Eberle (JP 2000-219110 A; published Aug. 8, 2000), Bullinger et al. (US 2004/0089758 Al; published May 13, 2004), and Akaba et al. (US 2006/0097504 Al; published May 11, 2006). Final Act. 4—7. (4) Claims 15—17 and 22—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marc, Eberle, Bullinger, Akaba, and 4 Appeal 2016-001583 Application 11/578,424 Marako et al. (US 2002/0091479 Al; published Jul. 11, 2002). Final Act. 8-9. ANALYSIS At the outset, we note Appellants do not address the rejection of claims 12—17, 21—24, and 30-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 7—\\ Adv. Act. 2 (Mar. 2, 2015). Appellants attempted to make the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection moot by canceling dependent claim 13. See Reply after Final 3, 8 (Feb. 4, 2015); see also App. Br. A-l (Claims App’x.) (omitting claim 13). However, the Examiner did not admit the amendment (Adv. Act. 1 (Mar. 2, 2015)) and the Examiner maintains the rejection. Ans. 4. Because Appellants do not raise any issues with this rejection on appeal, we summarily sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 12—17, 21—24, and 30-31. § 112, First Paragraph, Rejection of Claims 12—17, 21—24, and 30—31 Claim 12 recites, inter alia: “wherein [1] the vehicle occupant protection device is actuated when a first threshold value of braking deceleration is exceeded, and [2] a braking force which is necessary for target braking, which is an amount of braking that stops the vehicle at a predefined distance from the obstacle, is produced simultaneously with the actuation of the vehicle occupant protection device.” The Examiner finds these features are not supported by the Specification, including paragraphs 19-20. Final Act. 2—3. Appellants contend (1) the feature “wherein the vehicle occupant protection device is 5 Appeal 2016-001583 Application 11/578,424 actuated when a first threshold value of braking deceleration is exceeded” is described in paragraph 18 of the Specification, and (2) the feature “a braking force which is necessary for target braking, which is an amount of braking that stops the vehicle at a predefined distance from the obstacle, is produced simultaneously with the actuation of the vehicle occupant protection device” is described in paragraphs 20 and 23 of the Specification. Br. 3^4. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention. At the outset, we agree with Appellants that the cited paragraphs of the Specification individually describe isolated features in claim 12. However, the cited paragraphs of the Specification describe these features in context of different exemplary embodiments of the invention and Appellants do not show that the features are taught as residing in the same embodiment. Spec. 18, 20, 23; see also Ans. 3. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, nowhere in the exemplary embodiment disclosed in paragraph 23 of the Specification, or any embodiments further described by paragraph 23, is there any “written description” of any “braking force which is necessary for target braking, which is an amount of braking that stops the vehicle at a predefined distance from the obstacle, is produced simultaneously with the actuation of the vehicle occupant protection device” and wherein “the vehicle occupant protection device is actuated when a first threshold value of braking deceleration is exceeded,” as recited in claim 12. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12— 17, 21-24, and 30-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre- AIA), first paragraph. 6 Appeal 2016-001583 Application 11/578,424 § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 12—17, 21—24, and 30—31 based on Marc, Eberle, Bullinger, and Akaba With respect to independent claims 12 and 30, the Examiner finds Marc teaches a vehicle occupant protection system in a vehicle [shown in Figure 1] equipped with all the claimed components, including (1) a control device (Marc 128); (2) a vehicle occupant protection device (Marc 1 51); an environmental sensor system provided with distance sensors (Marc H 34— 36); (3) a relative speed determining device for determining relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the obstacle (Marc H 34—36); and (4) a braking deceleration determining device for determining necessary braking deceleration to avoid a collision, based on determined distance and the relative speed (Marc H 50-51). Final Act. 4—5. To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on: (1) Eberle for explicitly teaching “determin[ing] the necessary braking deceleration only if the driver has activated the brake activation element (Eberle H 11—12); (2) Bullinger for teaching “the vehicle occupant protection device [] deactivated when an abort condition occurs” (Bullinger 131); and (3) Akaba for teaching “the vehicle occupant protection device [] actuated when a first threshold value of braking deceleration is exceeded, and a braking force which is necessary for target braking, which is an amount of braking that stops the vehicle at a predefined distance from the obstacle, [] produced simultaneously with the actuation of the vehicle occupant protection device.” (Akaba H 15, 84, 95—97). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s rationale for combining the prior art references. Instead, Appellants argue the cited prior art references 7 Appeal 2016-001583 Application 11/578,424 do not teach or suggest three disputed limitations of claims 12 and 30, including: (1) “the vehicle occupant protection device is actuated when a first threshold value of braking deceleration is exceeded”; (2) “a braking force which is necessary for target braking, which is an amount of braking that stops the vehicle at a predefined distance from the obstacle, is produced simultaneously with the actuation of the vehicle occupant protection device”; and (3) “activation of a brake control by a driver of the vehicle is a precondition for the determination of the necessary braking deceleration or for the determination of the occurrence of the predefined event.” Br. 5-7. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the Examiner provides a comprehensive, persuasive response to Appellants’ arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 4—6. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations. Id. For example, Marc teaches that the vehicle occupant protection device is actuated when a first threshold value of braking deceleration is exceeded. Ans. 4 (citing Marc Fig. 7). Similarly, Akaba teaches that “a braking force which is necessary for target braking, which is an amount of braking that stops the vehicle at a predefined distance from the obstacle, is produced simultaneously with the actuation of the vehicle occupant protection device.” Ans. 5 (citing Akaba H 15, 84, 95—97). Likewise, Aberle teaches “a sensing device for sensing activation of a braking activation element and determining the necessary braking deceleration or use the determined necessary braking deceleration as a basis for actuating the vehicle occupant 8 Appeal 2016-001583 Application 11/578,424 protection device only if the driver has activated the brake activation element.” Ans. 6 (citing Aberle 11—12, Abstract). For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 12 and 30 and their respective dependent claims 13—17, 21—24, and 31, which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 8. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12—17, 21—24, and 30— 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), 1st and 2nd paragraphs, as well as under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 12—17, 21-24, and 30-31. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation