Ex parte CLAR et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 2000

08832960 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte WOLFGANG CLAR, WALTER KUPFER,
and GUSTAVO BRAUSCH
________________
Appeal No. 1999-1058
Application No. 08/832,960
________________
HEARD: January 27, 2000
________________
Before STAAB, NASE, and GONZALES, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GONZALES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1999-1058
Application No. 08/832,960
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 14, which are all of the claims
in the application.
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a method for
carrying out an automatic braking operation for a motor-
vehicle brake system with an anti-lock system (ABS), and more
particularly, to a method used in a system with a manual
operable brake actuating device, the position of which
determines the brake pressure during non-automatic normal
braking, and with an ABS which detects reaching of the lock-up
limit of a wheel and thereupon controls the brake pressure for
at least this wheel. The method includes the steps of
controlling, via the automatic braking operation, the brake
pressure of at least one wheel not subjected to ABS control so
as to increase the brake pressure, and using the reaching of
the lock-up limit of at least one wheel as the trigger
criterion. Specification, page 1.
Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 3
Application No. 08/832,960
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to the brief
(Paper No. 28).
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Yoshino 5,020,863 Jun. 4, 1991
Steiner et al. (Steiner) 5,350,225 Sep. 27, 1994
(filed Mar. 17, 1993)
Claims 1 through 14 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of
Steiner.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and the
response to the arguments presented by appellants appear in
the Office actions mailed February 6 and July 18, 1997 (Paper
Nos. 16 and 22, respectively) and the answer (Paper No. 29,
mailed December 1, 1998), while the complete statement of
appellants’ arguments can be found in the brief (Paper No. 28,
filed August 24, 1998).
OPINION
Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 4
Application No. 08/832,960
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we conclude that
the rejection cannot be sustained.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 1, the only independent claim, recites a method for
carrying out an automatic braking operation for a motor-
vehicle brake system with a manually operable brake-actuating
device, the position of which determines the brake pressure
during non-automatic normal braking, a control for the
automatic braking operation and an ABS which detects when a
lock-up limit of a wheel is reached, thereupon controls the
brake pressure for the wheel and triggers the control for the
Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 5
Application No. 08/832,960
automatic braking operation, comprising the steps of actuating
an automatic braking operation upon reaching a trigger
criterion based at least on a condition that one or more
wheels has reached a lock-up limit to control the brake
pressure of a least one wheel not subjected to ABS control so
as to increase the brake pressure independently of the
manually operable brake-activating device, and during the
automatic braking operation, synchronously acting upon the at
least one wheel not subjected to ABS control and the
mechanical brake-actuating device such that the increased
brake pressure for the at least one wheel not subjected to ABS
control corresponds to the brake-pressure valve represented by
the respective instantaneous position of the mechanical brake-
activating device.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, Yoshino discloses an anti-
lock control device comprising wheel speed sensors (S -S ) for1 4
detecting the wheel speed of the wheels of a motor vehicle and
for outputting corresponding wheel speed signals; an
electronic control unit (ECU), including a central processing
Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 6
Application No. 08/832,960
unit and a solenoid actuating circuit, for processing the
wheel speed signals so as to determine whether the front and
rear wheels are exhibiting a tendency to enter a locked state
or recovering from a locked state, and for outputting pressure
control signals for selectively reducing, maintaining, and
increasing a braking pressure applied to the wheels; and a
fluid pressure control unit, including solenoids (SL -SL ) for1 4
controlling the braking pressure applied to the right front
and left front wheels in accordance with the pressure control
signals and solenoids (SL -SL ) for controlling the braking5 8
pressure applied to the right rear and left rear wheels in
accordance with the pressure control signals. The central
processing unit is programed to select one of a first control
mode in which the pressure control signals for selectively
reducing, maintaining, and increasing a braking pressure
applied to the right front and left front wheels are
determined independently from one another, and a second
control mode in which the pressure control signals for the
right front and left front wheels are determined based on a
Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 7
Application No. 08/832,960
locking tendency of one of the right front and left front
wheels having a higher wheel speed than the other. A timer is
also provided for measuring a duration in which the first and
second pressure control signals are both for one of
continuously reducing, and alternatively reducing and
maintaining, the braking pressure to the right front wheel and
the left front wheel, respectively. The central processing
unit selects the first control mode when the duration is less
than a predetermined value and the second control mode when
the duration is more than a predetermined value. Similar
calculations and judgements for anti-lock control are made for
the rear wheels (col. 4, lines 51-53).
Steiner discloses an automatic vehicle brake-pressure
control device for a vehicle equipped with an ABS (29),
including a vacuum brake power assist unit (18). In order to
trigger the actuation of the automatic braking system in
Steiner, the speed with which the driver operates the brake
pedal (19) is continuous monitored. If this speed overshoots
a prescribed threshold value M , the brake power assist units
Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 8
Application No. 08/832,960
Page 3 of the answer directs our attention to the discussion of the1
ground of rejection at paragraph 3 in Paper No. 22 and paragraphs 4 and 7 in
Paper No. 16. We remind the examiner that an answer should not refer, either
directly or indirectly, to more than one prior Office action. Thus, only those
statements of grounds of rejection appearing in a single prior action may be
incorporated by reference. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1208 (7th ed., Jul. 1998).
(18) is activated by connecting the working chamber (33) of
unit (18) with atmospheric pressure. This brings the braking
force of wheel brakes (11-14) to a value as high as possible
at as early as possible an instant in the course of braking,
and limits the value, if necessary along with the action of
the ABS (29), to ensure the dynamically stable deceleration of
the vehicle. See, Figure 1 and column 8, lines 20-37).
The examiner describes Yoshino as disclosing an
independent control mode in which any non-skidding wheel would
be controlled by the pressure coming from the master cylinder
(Paper No. 16, page 3). As far as Steiner is concerned, the
examiner considers Steiner to show an ABS having a traction
control system “of the type claimed” (id. at 4). It is the
examiner’s position that it would have been obvious “to have1
actuated the automatic braking independently of the manual
Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 9
Application No. 08/832,960
braking actuation in situation which requires traction control
as is taught by Steiner” (Paper No. 22, page 2).
We cannot support the examiner’s position. In order to
establish the prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention,
all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the
prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583
(CCPA 1974). Like appellants (brief, pages 15-17), we are
unable to find, and the examiner has not specifically
identified, where in the references the steps recited in claim
1 are found.
We point out that Yoshino discloses an ABS control
device, not a method for carrying out an automatic braking
operation, in which the wheels located on the same axle are
controlled either independently by the ABS or together
depending on the duration of brake pressure control signals to
the right and left wheels. Steiner does teach a method for
carrying out an automatic braking operation, but it uses the
speed with which the driver operates the brake pedal as the
Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 10
Application No. 08/832,960
trigger criterion, not the lock-up limit of one or more wheels
as recited in the method of claim 1.
Since all the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case for the obviousness of claim 1
and the rejection of that claim cannot be sustained.
Claims 2 through 14 are dependent on claim 1 and contain
all of the limitations of that claim. Therefore, we will also
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2
through 14.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejection of claims 1 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 11
Application No. 08/832,960
)
JEFFREY V. NASE ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN F. GONZALES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EVENSON MCKEOWN EDWARDS AND LENAHAN
SUITE 700
1200 G STREET NW
WASHINGTON DC 20005