Ex Parte Einig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

10754109 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

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.
10/754,109 01/08/2004 Frank Einig 1-24962 7723
46582 7590 03/01/2013
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANK EINIG and JOSEF KNECHTGES
____________

Appeal 2011-000534
Application 10/754,109
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000534
Application 10/754,109

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Woywod
1
and Fennel
2
. Claims 2-5 are cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter pertains to “a vehicle braking system
comprising regulating devices, which determine the transversely dynamic
behaviour of the vehicle, in order to maintain or restore stable vehicle
behaviour by setting the braking torque, independently of the driver, on
individual vehicle wheels.” Spec. 1, ll. 4-9.
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A vehicle braking system comprising:
regulating devices configured to determine the transverse
dynamic behavior of the vehicle with the vehicle braking
system configured to maintain or restore stable vehicle behavior
by setting braking torque on individual wheels independently of
the driver,
the vehicle braking system also configured to generate a
braking torque on a front wheel on the outside of a curve, or to
increase a braking torque on the front wheel on the outside of
the curve that has already been set, to prevent the vehicle from
overturning laterally when negotiating curves,

1
Woywod (WO 99/30941, publ. Jun. 24, 1999); (US 6,366,844 B1, iss.
Apr. 2, 2002). Citations are to the English Equivalent United States Patent.
2
Fennel (WO 99/30942, publ. Jun. 24, 1999); (US 6,554,293 B1, iss. Apr.
29, 2003). Citations are to the English Equivalent United States Patent.
Appeal 2011-000534
Application 10/754,109

3
the vehicle braking system further configured to activate
a different level of driving dynamic regulation when the
regulating devices determine that an undesired under-steering
of the vehicle is caused by the braking torque which has been
generated, or increased, on the front wheel on the outside of the
curve,
the vehicle braking system additionally configured to
generate, or increase, the braking torque on the front wheel on
the outside of the curve when a parameter indicative of the
vehicle transverse acceleration exceeds a transverse
acceleration limit that has a variable initial value that is
determined as a function of a loading state of the vehicle and
that is then increased from said initial value according to a
predetermined function during driving operation as long as an
amount of slip on wheels on the inside of the curve does not
exceed a predefined value, and
the vehicle braking system also being configured to reset
the transverse acceleration limit at the start of each driving
operation.

OPINION
Claim 1 calls for a variable initial value for the transverse
acceleration limit that is a function of a loading state of the vehicle. App.
Br., Claims Appendix. The Examiner determines “that both Woywod and
Fennel teach (1) a transverse acceleration that has a variable initial value and
(2) said value is determined as a function of a loading state of the vehicle.”
Ans. 6. The Appellants persuasively contend that the Examiner’s
combination of Woywod and Fennel would not have resulted in the
transverse acceleration limit as called for in claim 1 because neither
Woywod nor Fennel discloses “a variable initial transverse acceleration limit
that is dependent upon the vehicle load.” See App. Br. 4, 9.
Appeal 2011-000534
Application 10/754,109

4
As for Woywod, the Examiner does not identify any aspect of
Woywod’s disclosure that corresponds to a variable initial value for
transverse acceleration as called for in claim 1. Furthermore, although the
Examiner finds that “[i]n column 5, line 51 to column 6, line 2, Woywod
teaches that the initial transverse acceleration limit is a function of a loading
state of the vehicle” (Ans. 4), the Appellants correctly point out that
Woywod does not disclose resetting the threshold value for transverse
acceleration if a high load is present. App. Br. 4-6. Indeed, Woywod
discloses that a higher roof load 220 is identified through a major slip on the
inner wheels of a vehicle (step 504) and is not identified by passing the
transverse acceleration threshold (step 503). See Woywod, col. 5, l. 59- col.
6, l. 1; fig. 5. As such, the Examiner’s finding that Woywod discloses that
its transverse acceleration limit is a function of a loading state of a vehicle as
called for in claim 1 is not adequately supported.
As for Fennel, the Examiner finds that Fennel discloses “the use of a
variable transverse acceleration limit” which “is a function of vehicle load”
and “resetting the limit to a minimum at a start of each driving operation.”
Ans. 5 (citing Fennel, col. 1, ll. 20-31, 49-53, col. 2, ll. 60-62, col. 4, ll. 58-
65, col. 5, ll. 38-46). The Examiner also supports this finding by citing to
Fennel’s disclosure at column 5, lines 22-33, which describes:
The determined level of the center of gravity can then be
inserted into the equation for calculating the critical transversal
acceleration aycrit in order to modify with this the entry
threshold value ayon or a more complex entry condition.
This method of determinating the center of gravity can be
used either immediately at the beginning of the travel during
the first acceleration and brake maneuvers, repeated after
certain time intervals or during each suitable brake operation
Appeal 2011-000534
Application 10/754,109

5
and/or acceleration (preferably without turning the steering
wheel).
Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted). However, the Examiner’s citations to Fennel’s
disclosure do not adequately support a finding that Fennel discloses a
variable initial value for transverse acceleration rate which is a function of
vehicle load. See App. Br. 6-9. Among other things, Fennel discloses that
“[a]t the beginning of travel a value is assumed” for the initial value for the
transverse acceleration rate stability threshold for “any load that is legally
permissible.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Fennel, col. 4, ll. 58-62). The Appellants
persuasively contend that the term “legally permissible” “would necessarily
have to be the maximum design load that that [sic the] vehicle can carry, in
order to assure safe operation of the vehicle.” Id.; App. Br. 7. Additionally,
Fennel discloses that an adjustment of the transverse acceleration limit
occurs “at the beginning of the travel during the first acceleration and brake
maneuvers.” Reply Br. 3-4. The phrase “during the first acceleration and
brake maneuvers” is during operation of the motor vehicle and does not
correspond to an initial value for the transverse acceleration rate.
3
As such,
the Appellants persuasively argue that the Examiner’s finding that Fennel
discloses a variable initial transverse acceleration limit that is dependent
upon the vehicle load as called for in claim 1 does not reach the
preponderance of the evidence standard. See Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d
539, 541-42 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (the preponderance of the evidence standard

3
It is also notable that claim 1 calls for the transverse acceleration limit to
be reset “at the start of each driving operation,” which is defined by “the
driver switching on the ignition.” App. Br., Claims Appendix; Spec. 4, ll.
10-11. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2011-000534
Application 10/754,109

6
requires the finder of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more
probable than its nonexistence).
Thus, the Appellants persuasively contend that Woywod and Fennel
do not disclose “a variable initial transverse acceleration limit that is
dependent upon the vehicle load” (App. Br. 4) and that the Examiner’s
combination of their teachings would not have resulted in a variable initial
value for the transverse acceleration limit that is a function of a loading state
of the vehicle as called for in claim 1. See App. Br. 9.
Thus, the rejection of claims 1 and 6-10 as unpatentable over
Woywod and Fennel is not sustained.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1 and 6-10.

REVERSED

ELD