Ex Parte De Luca

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2017

13774148 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2017)

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.
13/774,148 02/22/2013 Marco De Luca 3081.080US1 7732
21186 7590 06/20/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
WORDEN, THOMAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCO DE LUCA1
Appeal 2016-003809
Application 13/774,148
Technology Center 3600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ferrari S.p.A. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003809
Application 13/774,148
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a “method to control a high
performance road vehicle equipped with a rear spoiler having at least one
adjustable aerodynamic profile.” Abstract. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A method to control a high performance road vehicle
equipped with a rear spoiler that has at least one adjustable
aerodynamic profile, the method comprising:
detecting a trajectory of the road vehicle corresponding to
oversteering or understeering when cornering with a control unit;
adjusting a setting of the adjustable aerodynamic profile
of the rear spoiler with the control unit to a higher angle of
incidence in order to increase a downforce generated by the rear
spoiler when oversteering is detected when cornering; and
adjusting the setting of the adjustable aerodynamic profile
of the rear spoiler with the control unit to a lower angle of
incidence in order to reduce the downforce created by the rear
spoiler when understeering is detected when cornering.
The following lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
DRS: The Drag Reduction System Explained, http://www.racecar-
engineering.com/articles/fl/drs-the-drag-reduction-system/ (last visited
Jan. 27, 2015) (hereinafter “DRS”).
HU1CH13posting, http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/34756/tl626363-
oversteering-understeering (last visited May 26, 2015) (hereinafter
“HU1CH13”).
References and Rejections
Maxwell
Grajkowski
Wong
US 7,770,962 B1 Aug. 10, 2010
US 2011/0301825 A1 Dec. 8,2011
WO 2010/030158 A1 Mar. 18, 2010
2
Appeal 2016-003809
Application 13/774,148
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong, Maxwell, Grajkowski, DRS, and HU1CH13. Non-
Final Act. 2—3.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds claim 1 is obvious “based on the primary
reference of Wong, ‘which discloses a vehicle with a rear spoiler that can be
adjusted in various modes to adjust rear downforce based on sensor inputs,’”
as modified by the teachings of Maxwell, Grajkowski, DRS, and HU1CH13.
Ans. 2—3.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error because “the
cited references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness by failing
to disclose or suggest each and every element of the claim and teach away
from the proposed combination of cited references” Br. 13 (emphasis
omitted). Particularly, Appellant contends “Wong only discusses fixing the
spoiler in ‘drift mode’ during turning regardless of whether understeering or
oversteering occurs,” and “Wong also expressly teaches against adjusting
the airfoil to reduce the downforce in cornering situations.” Br. 8—9 (citing
Wong 15:11-13).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with
Appellant that Wong teaches “[tjypically, when a vehicle is turning, ... the
vehicle will need extra down-force in order to stabilize the vehicle,” calling
this increased downforce “critical” to prevent the vehicle from “flying or
rolling.” See Wong 15:1—13 (emphasis added); Br. 8. In contrast, claim 1
recites adjusting the spoiler “to reduce the downforce created by the rear
spoiler when understeering is detected when cornering” (emphasis added).
Further, the Examiner agrees that “several of the cited references expressly
3
Appeal 2016-003809
Application 13/774,148
teach against the concept of reducing downforce because the traditional
reaction ... is to increase downforce,” calling the concept “known” but
“generally . . . considered unsafe,” although “‘[djrifting’ or ‘controlled
skids’ have been shown in Hollywood movies such as ‘Fast and Furious: . . .
Tokyo Drift’, and even Nintendo’s ‘power slide’ featured in their ‘Super
Mario Kart’ video games.” Ans. 4 (emphasis added). Accordingly, there is
no dispute on the record before us that the cited prior art teaches away from
the Examiner’s combination. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.”).
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record before us to not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 6, 11,
and 16, which contain limitations commensurate in scope, and the claims
dependent thereof.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4