Ex Parte Engels

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

14065839 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/065,839 10/29/2013
117396 7590 07/01/2019
FG1L/Burgess Law Office, PLLC
P.O. Box 214320
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Peter Engels
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83390654 7910
EXAMINER
FE!, JORDAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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 PETER ENGELS
Appeal2018-004055
Application 14/065,839
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Appellant") 1 appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5,
6, and 8-22, which are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the applicant, as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004055
Application 14/065,839
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates generally to a power steering
system; and, more specifically, to an apparatus for detecting friction in a
steering gear of such a power steering system." Spec. ,-J 3. Claims 1, 13, 17,
and 20 are independent. Claims 1 and 17, reproduced below with emphasis
added, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A steering system comprising:
a steering gear;
a sensor operative to measure acceleration of the
steering gear during a change in the steering angle and to
generate a sensor signal representing structure-borne noise
associated with said steering gear; and
a control unit operative to compare the sensor signal with
a threshold value and to detect a fault state if the sensor signal
is larger than the threshold value.
17. A steering system comprising:
a steering gear;
a sensor operative to detect vibration in the steering gear
generated by friction during a change in the steering angle and
to generate a signal representing the vibration; and
a control unit operative to compare the sensor signal with
a threshold value and to detect a fault state if the sensor signal
is larger than the threshold value.
2
Appeal2018-004055
Application 14/065,839
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Yamashita US 2008/0271942 Al Nov. 6, 2008
Itakura US 2009/0071745 Al Mar. 19, 2009
Oblizajek US 2009/0294206 Al Dec. 3, 2009
Schusteritz US 2010/0305803 Al Dec. 2, 2010
Trinh US 2011/0218710 Al Sept. 8, 2011
Gabay US 2014/0074345 Al Mar. 13, 2014
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review: 2
I. Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schusteritz,
Oblizajek, and Trinh. Final Act. 7-10.
II. Claims 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schusteritz, Oblizajek, Trinh, and Yamashita.
Jd.atl0-11.
III. Claims 10, 13-17, 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schusteritz,
Gabay, Trinh, Yamashita, and Itakura. Id. at 11-13.
2 We note that a stated rejection of claims 1-12 (presumably just
pending claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-12) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the enablement requirement, and a rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite, have been withdrawn by the Examiner and thus are not
before us for review as part of the instant appeal. Ans. 1 O; see also Final
Act. 4-7.
3
Appeal2018-004055
Application 14/065,839
IV. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schusteritz and Oblizajek. Id.
at 13-14.
V. Claims 20 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schusteritz, Gabay, Yamashita, and
Itakura. Id. at 14-16.
ANALYSIS
All of the claims require a sensor that is operative to measure a
particular parameter of the steering gear ( acceleration in independent
claim 1; acoustics in independent claim 13), or to detect vibration in the
steering gear generated by friction (independent claims 17 and 20), during a
change in the steering angle, and to generate a sensor signal representing the
parameter or vibration. See Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). In
other words, a specific parameter or vibration is sensed at the steering gear
to generate a signal that is then compared against a threshold value.
In rejecting the claims, for all of Rejections I-V, the Examiner relies
on Schusteritz for disclosing such a sensor as claimed. Final Act. 7-8, 11,
13-14, 15 ( all citing Schusteritz, Abstract; ,i,i 20, 23). Appellant asserts that
the cited portions of Schusteritz relied on do not support the Examiner's
finding. See Appeal Br. 15-16, 22, 24-25, 27, 30, 33 (all citing Schusteritz
,i,i 23, 30); see also id. at 10-11 (summarizing the operation of Schusteritz
and citing Schusteritz ,i,i 23, 30, 32, 35, 36). In short, we agree with
Appellant's assertion of error with respect to the Examiner's reliance on
Schusteritz.
4
Appeal2018-004055
Application 14/065,839
Although we appreciate that Schusteritz is directed to a very similar
goal to that of the present invention-namely, "detecting internal friction in
an electric steering system of a motor vehicle having a control unit"
(Schusteritz, Abstract)-we note that it does so in a different way using
different sensors. In particular, the Examiner's citation to paragraph 23 ( as
well as Appellant's citations to additional paragraphs) demonstrates that
Schusteritz achieves the goal ( again, admittedly indicative of friction
detection) via a comparison of sensed steering wheel torque and motor
position within the steering system.
The mention in Schusteritz of other sensors (such as vehicle speed,
vehicle acceleration, steering rate, and/or steering angle) are used to
functionally "filter out" the sensed torques that are likely unrelated to
friction, but the relevant sensors in Schusteritz used to infer friction are
measuring or detecting torque and position. See, e.g., Schusteritz ,-J,-J 5-6,
23, 26, 30-36. As discussed above, the sensor recited in each of the present
claims is operative to sense a specific parameter or vibration at the steering
gear, and such a sensor as recited in each of the independent claims is not
met by Schusteritz's sensors measuring torque and position.
Upon review of the evidence before us, we agree with Appellant that
Schusteritz, as relied on in the rejections, is insufficient to disclose the
sensor as recited in the present claims. Thus, for the reasons presented by
Appellant regarding the distinctions between the relevant sensors of
Schusteritz and the sensor claimed, we agree with Appellant.
Accordingly, because the Examiner's rejections are premised on
findings that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do
not sustain them.
5
Appeal2018-004055
Application 14/065,839
DECISION
We REVERSE The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 9,
11, 12, 17, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schusteritz, Oblizajek, and Trinh.
We REVERSE The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schusteritz, Oblizajek,
Trinh, and Yamashita.
We REVERSE The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 13-17,
19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Schusteritz, Gabay, Trinh, Yamashita, and Itakura.
We REVERSE The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 20 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schusteritz and
Oblizajek.
We REVERSE The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 20 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schusteritz, Gabay,
Yamashita, and Itakura.
REVERSED
6