Ex Parte Englert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

11622129 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
11/622,129 01/11/2007 Kirk Englert 81145221 2415
77327 7590 08/01/2017
ANGELA M. BRUNETTI, PLLC
3233 Lake Forest Dr.
Sterling Heights, MI 48314
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, XU AN LAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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):
ANGELA@I3LAW.COM
LISA@I3LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRK ENGLERT, DOUG MARSDEN,
ERIK CHUBB, DAVID MESSIH, and PAUL SCHMITT
Appeal 2015-005179
Application 11/622,129
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kirk Englert et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-005179
Application 11/622,129
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to “vehicle dynamic and stability control
systems” and “the mitigation of yaw oscillations experienced while
trailering.” Spec. 11. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with italics
added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A control system for a vehicle comprising:
a speed sensor generating a vehicle speed signal;
a sway detection sensor generating an oscillation signal in
response to trailer oscillations in a predetermined frequency
range for at least a predetermined period of time;
at least one vehicle brake;
a brake control coupled to said at least one vehicle brake
and associated with at least one trailer brake;
a stability control system coupled to said speed sensor,
said sway detection sensor, and said brake control; and
a controller coupled to said stability control system and
braking at least one of said at least one vehicle brake and said at
least one trailer brake and in response to said oscillation signal.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—10, 12—18, and 25—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Offerle (US 2005/0206233 Al,
published Sept. 22, 2005).
2) Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Offerle and Funke (US 2002/0107627 Al,
published Aug. 8, 2002).
3) Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Funke and Offerle.
2
Appeal 2015-005179
Application 11/622,129
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellants contend that Offerle does not anticipate independent
claims 1 and 25 because Offerle does not disclose “generating an oscillation
signal in response to trailer oscillations in a predetermined frequency range
for at least a predetermined period of time.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis
omitted). Appellants argue that the claims require “a sensor to detect sway
(sway is defined in the specification to be oscillations in a certain frequency
range for a specified period of time that are not the result of steering
changes) and generation of an oscillation signal in response to the
detection of trailer sway.” Id. at 13—14. Appellants argue that “Offerle
discloses a yaw rate sensor 28 (not a sway detection sensor) that
continuously generates a yaw rate output, and that is all.” Id. at 14.
Appellants further argue that “Offerle’s teachings are directed to yaw rate
and lateral acceleration sensors that detect when a vehicle is turning.” Id.
Appellants continue that “[tjhere is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion in
Offerle to detect signals that are representative of oscillations in a certain
frequency range for a specified period of time as claimed in the present
invention.” Id.
The Examiner responds that, in a prior Board decision, it was
determined that Offerle discloses “a sway detection sensor generating an
oscillation signal.” Ans. 3 (citing Board decision mailed December 13,
3
Appeal 2015-005179
Application 11/622,129
2013).2 With respect to the portion of the claim limitation italicized above,
the Examiner states:
There is no particular range or particular period of time recited
in the claims. There is no restriction on the range or the time.
This claimed feature would allow any range or any period of
time. Since the range and period of time have not been
restricted, any range and any time period would be acceptable
to meet this claimed feature. As such, Offerle . . . meet[s] this
claimed feature.
Id.
For the following reasons, we do not sustain this rejection.
Appellants’ Specification describes that during towing of a trailer, “a
vehicle-trailer combination has a physical phenomenon . . . such that at a
certain speed lateral disturbances to the trailer may cause divergent trailer
yaw oscillations. . . . The trailer yaw oscillations may develop into an
unstable situation.” Spec. 14. The Specification further provides that sway
oscillations occur “in a certain frequency range, such as between 0.5-1.5Hz,
which occur for a specific period of time and that are not caused by steering
changes.” Id. 143. Based on this disclosure, we determine that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “trailer oscillations” to
mean oscillations not caused by steering changes, but by lateral disturbances
to the trailer during travel.
Although we appreciate the Examiner’s reference to Offerle’s yaw
rate sensor, Offerle discloses that “in straight line driving, the vehicle yaw
stability control usually does not activate.” Offerle 1132; see also id. Fig.
2 In that Decision, it was stated that a yaw rate sensor “may constitute a sway
detection sensor and generate oscillation signals.” 12/13/13 Dec. at 4
(emphasis added).
4
Appeal 2015-005179
Application 11/622,129
19 (yaw rate comparison only applied at step 265 if vehicle is “Turning
Forward” at step 264.). Offerle provides “a control system to enhance the
traditional yaw stability control upon the detection of the unstable trailering
during a turning.” Id. 1134. The Examiner has not, however, directed us to
any disclosure in Offerle where the yaw rate sensor is used to determine
trailer oscillations when the vehicle is travelling in a forward direction, nor
has the Examiner directed us to any disclosure in Offerle of frequency of
oscillations or time period for oscillations. The Examiner has, thus, not
adequately explained how Offerle’s yaw rate sensor generates “an oscillation
signal in response to trailer oscillations in a predetermined frequency range
for at least a predetermined period of time” in view of our construction of
the term “trailer oscillations.” We also do not agree with the Examiner that
any frequency range or time period will meet the claim limitations because
the frequency range and predetermined time period relate to those that result
in “trailer oscillations.” Consequently, the Examiner has not established by
a preponderance of the evidence that Offerle discloses the “sway detection
sensor” recited in claim 1, or the step of “generating an oscillating signal
indicative of a trailer swaying . . .” recited in claim 25. We, thus, do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 25 and claims 2—10 and 12—18 which
depend from claim 1 and claims 26 and 27 which depend from claim 25.
Rejection 2
Claims 11 and 19 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 30-31 (Claims
App.). The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 19 as unpatentable over Offerle
and additional disclosure from Funke. Final Act. 4. The Examiner does not,
however, rely on the additional disclosure from Funke to cure the
deficiencies in Offerle with regard to claim 1, as discussed above. Id.
5
Appeal 2015-005179
Application 11/622,129
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 19 for the same
reasons stated in connection with claim 1.
Rejection 3
Regarding claim 20, the Examiner finds that Funke discloses “a sway
detection sensor 638 generating an oscillation signal in response to detecting
trailer oscillations within a predetermined frequency range for at least a
predetermined period of time.” Final Act. 5. Appellants contend that Funke
does not disclose the claimed sway detection sensor but, rather, discloses a
string potentiometer 638 “that measures an angle between the trailer and the
vehicle known as the hitch angle.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellants argue that
Funke’s string potentiometer provides “an instantaneous articulation angle
between the vehicle and the trailer” but does not “generate an oscillation
signal” as required in claim 20. Id. The Examiner provides the same
response as for claim 1. Ans. 3—A.
The Examiner has not directed us any to any disclosure in Funke of
frequency of oscillations or time period for the oscillations. As also with
claim 1, the Examiner has, thus, not adequately explained how Funke’s
string potentiometer generates “an oscillation signal in response to detecting
trailer oscillations within a predetermined frequency range for at least a
predetermined period of time.” We also do not agree with the Examiner that
any frequency range or time period meet the claim limitations because the
frequency range and predetermined time period are related to those that
result in “trailer oscillations.” Consequently, the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Funke discloses the
“sway detection sensor” recited in claim 20. Further, the Examiner does not
rely on Offerle in this rejection for disclosure of the sway detection sensor.
6
Appeal 2015-005179
Application 11/622,129
Final Act. 5. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 or the
rejection of claims 21—24 which depend from claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27 is reversed.
REVERSED
7