Ex Parte Breiner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

11505571 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT JOSEPH BREINER and MARK JOHN CHERNEY

Appeal 2010-011623
Application 11/505,571
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, PATRICK R. SCANLON,
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-18 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2010-011623
Application 11/505,571

- 2 -
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is a vehicle steering control system. Spec. 1,
para. [2]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A vehicle including
an articulated frame having a front portion and a back
portion,
a plurality of traction devices configured to propel the
frame on the ground,
at least one hydraulic actuator coupled to the front and
back portions of the frame to control the relative positions of
the front and back portions of the frame, and
a control system coupled to the at least one hydraulic
actuator and including
a steering wheel,
a controller,
a steering wheel sensor positioned to detect the position
of the steering wheel and communicate the position of the
steering wheel to the controller,
a hydraulic fluid control positioned to provide hydraulic
fluid to the at least one hydraulic actuator and receive
communication from the controller to adjust the position of the
hydraulic actuator in response to a change in position of the
steering wheel,
a vehicle condition sensor positioned to detect a
condition of the vehicle and communicate the condition to the
controller, and
a resistance control device coupled to the steering wheel
and in communication with the controller to adjust the
resistance to movement of the steering wheel in response to the
condition sensed by the vehicle condition sensor.
Appeal 2010-011623
Application 11/505,571
- 3 -
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Mizuno
Jolly
Millsap
Wildey
US 4,834,205
US 6,373,465 B2
US 2002/0103589 A1
US 2004/0093139 A1
May 30, 1989
Apr 16, 2002
Aug 1, 2002
May 13, 2004

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Wildey.
2. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wildey and Millsap.
3. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wildey and Mizuno.
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wildey, Mizuno and Jolly.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Wildey discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 including a vehicle condition sensor that determines the articulation
of the vehicle and then adjusts the resistance by the controller. Ans. 4. The
Examiner further states that Wildey discloses an operator input device that
includes a steering sensitivity switch that can be changed between a coarse
and a fine mode. Ans. 6. The Examiner believes that Wildey would be
understood by one skilled in the art as disclosing that resistance to steering
wheel movement can change based on the condition of the vehicle. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2010-011623
Application 11/505,571
- 4 -
Appellants argue that Wildey fails to disclose a device that adjusts the
resistance to movement of the steering wheel. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants
respond to the Examiner’s reliance on Wildey by arguing that response from
movement of the steering wheel differs from adjusting resistance to
movement of the steering wheel. Reply Br. 2.
The issue before us is not whether Wildey provides hydraulic power
to assist in the steering of an articulated vehicle, neither is it whether Wildey
adjusts the sensitivity of its control outputs between a coarse and fine mode.
Rather, the issue is whether Wildey provides proprioceptive feedback to the
operator in the form of resistance to control inputs from the operator (i.e.,
steering inputs). This problem was recognized by Appellants.
. . . many pieces of construction equipment use hydraulics to
control the steering of the vehicle. For an operator to have a
sense of the response of the vehicle to steering instructions, it is
helpful for the steering wheel or other such steering device to
provide feedback to the operator.
Spec. p. 1, para. [2] (emphasis added). The Specification teaches a system
that provides such operator feedback.
The control system includes . . . a vehicle condition sensor
positioned to detect a condition of the vehicle and communicate
the condition to the controller, and a steering feedback coupled
to the operator steering input and in communication with the
controller to provide physical feedback to the operator through
the operator steering input in response to the condition sensed
by the vehicle condition sensor.
Spec. p. 2, para [4].
Controller 40 adjusts the amount of effort required to turn
steering wheel 46 through MR clutch 66. By increasing the
magnetic field provided by field generator 74, the amount of
torque required to turn steering wheel 46 can be adjusted.
Appeal 2010-011623
Application 11/505,571
- 5 -
Spec. p. 7, para. [27]; see also para [26]; para. [28]; Spec. p. 8, paras. [30];
and para. [31]. This feedback feature is claimed in the following limitation
from claim 1:
a resistance control device coupled to the steering wheel and in
communication with the controller to adjust the resistance to
movement of the steering wheel in response to the condition
sensed by the vehicle condition sensor.
App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner has identified no disclosure in
Wildey of a proprioceptive feedback system as disclosed and claimed by
Appellants. The steering sensitivity capability in Wildey identified by the
Examiner is directed to a control where information in the form of control
inputs is being supplied from the operator to the machine. Ans. 6. In
contrast, Appellants’ feedback system supplies information from the
machine to the operator. The Examiner’s findings are erroneous and we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-7
Claims 2-7 all depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Inasmuch
as claim 1 is not anticipated, claims 2-7 cannot be anticipated. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-7.
Claims 8-10 and 12-15
Claim 8
The Examiner applies the same findings for the anticipation rejection
of independent claim 8 as were used to reject claim 1. Ans. 3-4. The
Examiner further states that Wildey explains how the vehicle can react more
quickly or slowly to the operator’s commands. Ans. 8. In response,
Appellants argue that Wildey fails to describe a steering feedback that
provides physical feedback to the operator through the steering wheel in
response to a condition sensed by the vehicle’s position sensor. App. Br. 10.
Appeal 2010-011623
Application 11/505,571
- 6 -
Claim 8 is not anticipated by Wildey because Wildey does not provide
physical steering feedback as claimed. Our analysis of claim 1 also applies
to claim 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 8.
Claims 9, 10 and 12-15
Claims 9, 10 and 12-15 all depend directly or indirectly from claim 8.
Inasmuch as claim 8 is not anticipated by Wildey, claims 9, 10 and 12-15
cannot be anticipated. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection to claims 9, 10 and 12-15.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 8 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
steering feedback includes a housing, a magnetic field generator, and a
magnetically responsive material, the controller controls the magnetic field
generated by the magnetic field generator to adjust the level of physical
feedback.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner finds that Wildey
discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, except a steering feedback with a
magnetic field generator. Ans. 4. The Examiner cites Millsap as disclosing
a steering feedback system with a magnetic field generator and magnetically
responsive material. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wildey as taught by
Millsap to provide improved steering response. Ans. 4-5.
Appellants argue that Wildey, instead of teaching a feedback system,
teaches a control system that is designed to ignore operator inputs that are
received after the front and rear frames have reached maximum articulated
position. App. Br. 12. The Answer does not specifically address
Appellants’ substantive argument and merely states, in conclusory fashion,
that all limitations of claim 11 are found in Wildey and Millsap. Ans. 8.
Appeal 2010-011623
Application 11/505,571
- 7 -
The Examiner did not articulate an adequate reason why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would combine the force feedback system of Millsap
with Wildey’s control system. Wildey is designed to ignore certain operator
inputs. See Wildey, para [0039]. Thus, the Examiner’s proposed
combination requires the person of ordinary skill in the art to disregard a key
aspect of Wildey’s control system.
It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick
and choose from any one reference only as much of it as will
support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts
necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly
suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238 241 (CCPA 1965) cited by In re Hyon, 679
F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Examiner’s selection of Wildey and
Millsap indicates an improper hindsight reconstruction of the Appellants’
invention and, accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Claims 16-18 and 20
Claim 16
The Examiner finds that Wildey discloses all of the elements of claim
16 except a controller that provides a gain in response to a change in vehicle
condition. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Mizuno discloses a steering
control apparatus that provides a gain in response to a change in vehicle
condition, wherein the gain increases after initial movement of the wheel.
Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Wildey as taught by Mizuno in order to
provide an improved steering response. Id.
Appellants argue that Wildey fails to disclose a gain adjustment in
response to a condition detected by the position sensor 70, as recited in
claim 16. App. Br. 13. Appellants also argue that Mizuno fails to disclose a
Appeal 2010-011623
Application 11/505,571
- 8 -
controller that increases a gain after initial movement or change of direction
of a steering wheel. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wildey and
Mizuno discloses all of the elements of claim 16. Wildey can automatically
adjust between coarse and fine steering sensitivity as a function of what gear
the vehicle is in. Wildey, para. [0034] – [0035]. Sensing what gear the
vehicle is in constitutes detecting a condition of the vehicle within the
meaning of claim 16. Automatically switching between coarse and fine
steering mode depending on the gear the vehicle is in constitutes adjusting
the gain in response to a change in the condition of the vehicle within the
meaning of claim 16. Finally, we agree with the Examiner that Mizuno
discloses increasing the gain after initial movement of the steering wheel.
Mizuno addresses inadvertent oversteer by the operator. Mizuno, col. 1, l.
66 –col. 2, l. 4. Mizuno solves this problem by keeping the gain small for
the leading edge of the steering angle signal curve. Col. 9, see discussion
under heading for “Third Mode.”
Appellants otherwise do not challenge the Examiner’s conclusion that
Wildey and Mizuno are combinable for purposes of an obviousness analysis,
therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Claims 17, 18 and 20
The Examiner finds that claims 17 and 18 read on the combination of
Wildey and Mizuno. Ans. 9. In particular, the Examiner finds that Mizuno
provides that gain is changed as a function of vehicle velocity. Id. With
respect to claim 20, the Examiner finds that Jolly discloses a feedback
system with a clutch. Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wildey as
Appeal 2010-011623
Application 11/505,571
- 9 -
taught by Mizuno and Jolly in order to provide a means of adjusting the
response of the vehicle to the steering problem. Id.
Appellant offers no argument for the patentability of claims 17, 18
and 20 apart from the arguments advanced with respect to claim 16, from
which claims 17, 18, and 20 depend. Therefore, claims 17, 18 and 20 fall
with claim 16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
17, 18 and 20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 is reversed. The
decision of the Examiner to reject claim 16-18 and 20 is affirmed. No time
period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Vsh