Ex Parte Bunk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201713502713 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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. 13/502,713 06/28/2012 Michael Bunk 10191/7081 5888 24972 7590 02/27/2017 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2017 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): nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL BUNK and JOSE-MARIA RODELGO LUCAS Appeal 2015-0066751 Application 13/502,7132 Technology Center 3600 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES A. WORTH, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 9-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references the Substitute Specification (“Spec.,” filed Apr. 18, 2012), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 15, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 7, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 12, 2015) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Sept. 4, 2014). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-006675 Application 13/502,713 BACKGROUND According to Appellants, the Specification “relates to a method for controlling a valve in a hydraulic brake system.” Spec. 1,11. 3^4. CLAIMS Claims 9-18 are on appeal. Claim 9 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 9. A method for controlling a selector valve situated in a hydraulic brake system of a motor vehicle, comprising: opening the selector valve by applying an electrical signal having multiple different control phases; and setting a time duration of at least one of the control phases as a function of at least one braking parameter; wherein the control phases include a valve opening phase in which the electrical signal is an impulse. Appeal Br., Claims App. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 9-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Breitenbacher3 in view of Eichhom.4 DISCUSSION Independent claim 9 recites, inter alia, the step of “setting a time duration of at least one of the control phases as a function of at least one braking parameter.” Claim 16, the only other independent claim on appeal, is directed to a control unit for controlling a selector valve with a processor “configured to set a time duration of at least one of the control phases as a 3 Breitenbacher et al., US 6,984,004 B2, iss. Jan. 10, 2006. 4 Eichhom et al., US 5,823,640, iss. Oct. 20, 1998. 2 Appeal 2015-006675 Application 13/502,713 function of at least one braking parameter.” In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Breitenbacher teaches these limitations “as broadly recited; see Fig. 5, Ap, and the abstract,” without further explanation. Final Act. 2. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner states: The Examiner submits that a time duration of the various control phases of the electrical signal are set as a function of at least one braking parameter (in this case pressure p), and thus can be varied. This is in contrast to what is shown in Fig. 2 of Breitenbacher, in which the time durations of the control phases of the electrical signal appear to be fixedly predefined. Breitenbacher teaches that this results in “adverse effects such as noise production and high mechanical load on the valve” (see column 3, lines 20-26). Accordingly, an improved control method is described in column 5, line 16 - column 6, line 55 with reference to Fig. 5 of Breitenbacher, in which the various control phases of the electrical signal are repeatedly described in relation to pressure p or pressure drop/difference Ap. The Examiner submits that this relationship described in column 5, line 16 — column 6, line 55 and shown in Fig. 5 meets the broad limitation of “as a function of at least one braking parameter,” as broadly recited. This is also evidenced by Fig. 6 which clearly shows a closed feedback loop for control of the valve (at 602), and thus valve control based on or as a function of sensed braking parameters (at 600). Ans. 2—3. We have reviewed the cited portions of Breitenbacher and the Examiner’s statements, and we agree with Appellants that Breitenbacher does not appear to disclose setting a time duration as claimed. Rather, we agree with Appellants that, at best, Breitenbacher discloses the behavior of current, voltage, and pressure over time, but “Breitenbacher does not specifically describe that a time duration is set as a function of change in pressure.” Reply Br. 2. Further, although the Examiner indicates that the claim requirements are broad, without further explanation, we see no 3 Appeal 2015-006675 Application 13/502,713 indication in Breitenbacher that a time duration is set based on a braking parameter as claimed. Accordingly, we are persuaded of reversible error with respect to the rejection of each of the independent claims on appeal, and thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 9 and 16 or dependent claims 10- 15, 17, and 18. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the rejection of claims 9-18. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation