Ex Parte Brewer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2012

11246598 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL EDWARD BREWER and TODD ALLEN BROWN
____________

Appeal 2010-006509
Application 11/246,598
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEN B. BARRETT, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Edward Brewer and Todd Allen Brown (Appellants) seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 26,
28, and 33-35, the only claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

Appeal 2010-006509
Application 11/246,598

2
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ invention is directed to a dynamic control system and
a method for controlling a hydraulic system. Independent claim 26,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
26. A dynamic control system comprising:

a plurality of sensors generating a dynamic control
signal;

a brake system comprising a fluid line coupled to a
brake bleed mechanism and adapted to contain
brake fluid, said brake system further comprising a
switchable valve coupled to said fluid line and
comprising a small orifice and an adjacent large
orifice, said switchable valve adapted to switch to
said small orifice in response to a high pressure
difference across said valve, said switchable valve
further adapted to switch to said large orifice in
response to a low pressure difference across said
valve, wherein said switchable valve moves
laterally; and

a controller controlling said brake system in
response to said dynamic control signal, said
controller generating a pressure build and a
pressure bleed at a beginning of said pressure build
thereby relieving pressure on an upstream side of
said switchable valve through said first brake bleed
mechanism, whereby said switchable valve
switches to said large orifice thereby allowing
maximum fluid flow through said switchable
valve.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 26, 28, and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art
Appeal 2010-006509
Application 11/246,598

3
(hereinafter “AAPA”) in view of Sprott (US 4,294,113, issued Oct. 13,
1981).
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 26 and 35, the Examiner
maintains that the AAPA brake system discloses all limitations of the
claimed invention with the exception of a brake bleed mechanism “bleeding
upstream of the valve.” Ans. 3. The Examiner cited to the Sprott patent as
teaching a high pressure surge protection system with a bleed mechanism
bleeding upstream of a valve, and concluded that it would have been obvious
to modify the AAPA system “in order to protect sensitive equipment
downstream.” Ans. 3-4. The Appellants counter that “[t]here is no teaching
to motivate one skilled in the art to modify the AAPA with Sprott to
facilitate valve switching as claimed.” App. Br. 5.
The Examiner has not provided a sufficient reason with a rational
underpinning to combine Sprott’s upstream bleed mechanism with the
AAPA brake system. The AAPA system is a conventional automobile
braking and rollover prevention system that includes “tire sensors and
electronic switching circuits for detection and monitoring of the rotational
behavior of the tires and for the generation of electric brake pressure control
signals for use in slip and rollover control,” but does not describe any
sensitive equipment that is exposed to the fluid in the AAPA brake system,
and particularly not downstream of the valve having the switchable orifice
size. Spec., p. 2, paras. [0007], [0008]; Fig. 1
1
. Sprott teaches a high

1
Appellants’ Figure 1 illustrates “typical hydraulic components of a brake
system 21”, with the addition of a bleed mechanism 22 and bleed
mechanism control valve 31. Spec., p. 6, para. [0024]. There is no
Appeal 2010-006509
Application 11/246,598

4
pressure surge protection system that aids in preventing “severe damage on
sensitive instruments, such as flowmeters, transducers and the like.” Sprott,
col. 1, ll. 38-40. Given that the Examiner has not pointed to, and we fail to
see any, evidence establishing the existence of instruments or components
downstream in the hydraulic circuit in the AAPA brake system that are
especially sensitive to pressure surges, the Examiner’s stated reason to
modify the AAPA system, i.e., “in order to protect sensitive equipment
downstream,” lacks any rational underpinnings.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 26 and 35, and of claims 28 and
33-34 depending from claim 26, as being unpatentable over AAPA in view
of Sprott is not sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of claims 26,
28, and 33-35 would have been obvious over AAPA in view of Sprott.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 26, 28, and 33-35 is reversed.

REVERSED

JRG

indication that any of the “typical hydraulic components” are sensitive
instruments or components.