Ex Parte Bunker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2010

10089011 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KENNETH JAMES BUNKER
____________

Appeal 2008-000350
Application 10/089,011
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: April 29, 2010
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2008-000350
Application 10/089,011

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kenneth James Bunker (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134
(2006) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14 and 17-20. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2006).

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for controlling a braking
system of an automobile. Spec. 1, ll. 4-8.
Claim 14 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
14. A method of controlling a braking system of a road-
going automobile, comprising:
providing the vehicle with front and back brakes in which
the front brakes include a pair of rotatable wheel hubs, at least
two spot-type brake discs mounted on each of the wheel
hubs and supported for rotation with the wheel hubs and for
axial sliding movement on the wheel hubs and each brake disc
presenting opposite circumferentially continuous annular
braking surfaces, at least three spot-type friction elements
mounted on a stationary brake caliper associated
with each wheel hub and interleaved with the associated brake
discs and being circumferentially discontinuous so as to overly
only an angular sector of the annular braking surfaces of the
brake discs, and with at least two of the friction elements being
axially slidable on its respective brake caliper for engaging and
disengaging the braking surfaces of the brake discs;
providing a rotating electric actuator having a stator and a
rotor with the electric actuator operative to move the friction
elements into braking engagement with the brake discs; and
controlling the attitude and movement of the brake discs
with respect to the wheel hub and controlling the attitude and
Appeal 2008-000350
Application 10/089,011

3
movement of the friction elements with respect to the caliper
to maintain the brake discs and friction elements in parallel
alignment during sliding movement into and out of braking
engagement with one another.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Taig US 4,804,073 Feb. 14, 1989
Bunker WO 98/26191 Jun. 18, 1998

Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and
17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bunker and Taig.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

OPINION
The Examiner found that Bunker discloses all the features of
independent claim 14 with the exception of an electric actuator. Ans. 3.
The Examiner further found that Taig discloses a disc brake system
including a hydraulic mechanism and an electric actuator. Id. The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to use the electric actuator and hydraulic backup of Taig in the
system of Bunker “in order to improve performance due to elimination of
pressure delay while still maintaining safety even in the event of an
electrical failure.” Id. Emphasis added.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings
of Bunker and Taig “is not based on an objectively accurate assertion about
Appeal 2008-000350
Application 10/089,011

4
braking systems.” App. Br. 4. More specifically, Appellant argues that the
Examiner has not provided any factual basis to show that a hydraulic brake
system suffers from “pressure delay” relative to an electrical braking system.
Id. See also Reply Br. 1-2. In response, the Examiner takes the position that
because an “electrical signal used in a motor setup travels at the speed of
light,” whereas a “pressure wave in a hydraulic system travels at a speed
several orders of magnitude slower, [a hydraulic system] is not as fast as an
electrical system.” Ans. 3.
Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that an electrical
signal travels faster than a hydraulic wave, nonetheless, we find that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that the
response time of a hydraulic or electrical brake system is not solely
dependent on the speed of the hydraulic or electrical signal, respectively.
Specifically, the response time of a braking system also depends on the
response time of the system’s components. For example, as Appellant has
pointed out, in the electrical braking system of Taig, signal sampling and
processing and rotational inertia of the various gears, are factors that affect
the overall response time of the braking system. See Reply Br. 2. Without
taking such factors into consideration, we find that it is not clear that a
hydraulic braking system would have been perceived by a person of ordinary
skill in the art to suffer from pressure delay relative to an electrical braking
system. Furthermore, Taig specifically teaches a disc brake that:
“. . . may be operated either solely by means of an
electrically or hydraulically operated motor or be
operated hydraulically for a service brake
application and operated by a motor for a parking
brake application.”
Taig, col. 1, ll. 18-22.
Appeal 2008-000350
Application 10/089,011

5
As such, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
inferred from the disclosure of Taig that because the brake system may be
operated either solely hydraulically or solely electrically, the hydraulic brake
system does not necessarily suffer from “pressure delay” relative to an
electrical braking system, as the Examiner contends.
For the above stated reasons, the Examiner has not established, on the
record before us, that a hydraulic braking system would have been perceived
by a person of ordinary skill in the art to suffer from pressure delay relative
to an electrical braking system.
In conclusion, the modification proposed by the Examiner of
modifying the system of Bunker with the electric actuator and hydraulic
backup of Taig “in order to improve performance due to elimination of
pressure delay” would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Emphasis added. Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim
14 and its dependent claims 17-19 cannot be sustained. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent claim is nonobvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is nonobvious).
Finally, with respect to claim 20, we note that the Notice of Appeal
filed Aug. 3, 2006, states that the final rejection of claims 14 and 17-20 is
being appealed. However, in the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 18, 2006,
Appellant specifically indicates that only the final rejection of claims 14 and
17-19 is being appealed (“[c]laims 14 and 17-20 stand rejected” and
“[c]laims 14 and 17-19 are being appealed,” Appeal Brief 3). Consistent
with the holding in BPAI precedential opinion Ex Parte Ghuman,, 88
USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008), Appellant may not reserve arguments for
Appeal 2008-000350
Application 10/089,011

6
some later time. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bunker and Taig.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed as to claims 14 and 17-19 and
affirmed as to claim 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls

DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC
LEGAL STAFF - M/C 483-400-402
5725 DELPHI DRIVE
PO BOX 5052
TROY, MI 48007