Ex Parte Fitzgibbon

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2007

10118523 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES FITZGIBBON
____________

Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: July 31, 2007
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and JOHN A.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 12-17, which are all of the claims
pending in this application as claims 1-11 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523

Appellant’s invention relates to movable barrier operators capable of
obstacle detection with or without speed detection. According to Appellant,
the movable barrier has a motor coupled to the barrier wherein a pulse
modulated speed controller provides the pulse used to control the speed of
the motor (Specification 4-5). In order to detect the presence of an obstacle,
the resultant pulse variable can also be compared with a maximum force
value that represents a level that indicates the presence of an obstacle
(Specification 5). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary independent claim 12, which is reproduced as follows:
12. A method, comprising:

- applying pulse modulation information to a motor to control
speed of movement of a movable barrier; and

- using the pulse modulation information to determine when the
movable barrier has likely encountered an obstacle.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference:
Cook US 5,708,338 Jan. 19, 1998

Claims 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Tyler.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the
Examiner.
We affirm.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellant’s arguments focus
2
Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523

on the claimed limitation related to the applying “pulse modulation
information” to a motor to control the speed of movement of the barrier, and
then “using the [same] pulse modulation information” to determine the
presence of a barrier (Br. 7). Specifically, the issue is:
whether using a combination of pulsed input signal and the
PWM signal for controlling the speed and obstacle detection in
Cook is the same as the claimed subject matter that requires
using the pulse modulation information for both controlling the
speed and detecting an obstacle.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue at hand.
1. Appellant’s claim 12 requires pulse modulation information to be
applied to a motor for controlling the speed of movement of the barrier as
well as used to determine when the barrier has encountered an obstacle.
2. Cook discloses a method and a system for controlling a vehicle
sliding door driven by an electric motor (col. 1, ll. 6-8).
3. The sliding door system includes a control module 28 (Figure 1)
which generates output signal for controlling electric motors 30, 32, and 34
to open and close the door in response to the signal from the control module
(col. 2, ll. 42-50).
4. To move the door, the control module uses the pulsed input signals
from the position encoder to characterize a number of door operating
parameters (col. 3, ll. 13-17) as the input signals have a known relationship
to the rotation of the drive motor (col. 3, ll. 17-19).
5. Based on the duty cycle of the motor, Cook discloses that the
timing between input signals and the order in which they are received are
indicative of door position, direction of travel, speed and force as well as
3
Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523

external elements such as vehicle incline, temperature, motor strength, track
stiffness, and weather seal tightness (col. 3, ll. 19-25).
6. The control module also uses the door speed data at different
positions before closing to determine the duty cycle of the drive motor to
apply the proper closing force to the door (col. 3, ll. 39-47).
7. The duty cycle of the door is adjusted via pulse width modulated
(PWM) signals applied thereto when the door reaches the predetermined
positions (col. 3, ll. 47-49).
8. Cook further discloses that the pulsed input signals are also used
for obstruction detection, wherein an increase in the expected time interval
between input signals indicates that force is being applied to the door as well
as the force being applied by the door to an obstruction (col. 3, ll. 60-65).
9. Cook discloses that if the interval of a second plurality of pulses
exceeds that of first pulses, the control module determines that the force
exerted by the motor to the door exceeds a selected force threshold,
indicating that the door has encountered an obstruction (col. 3, l. 65 through
col. 4, l. 4).
10. Cook further discloses that during a door closing operation, if the
interval of the sample size exceeds a selected percentage, the system
determines that an obstacle has locked the door movement (col. 9, ll. 53-65).
Cook limits the maximum force imparted by drive motor to the door and by
the door to an obstruction (col. 9, l. 66 through col. 10, l. 3).
11. Cook provides for tracking the door position by allowing the
control module to learn where the value zero for fully closed door is or learn
from the pulse count the position of a fully open door (col. 6, ll. 15-33).
4
Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523

12. Cook further discloses that the control module learns the motion
characteristics of the door system and detects an obstacle when the feedback
from the position encoder is not characteristic of the door system (col. 9, ll.
29-37).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. Scope of claims
Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term,
the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them
by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1135-36 (Fed. Cir.
2003). The claim construction analysis begins with the words of the claim.
See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d,
1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Claims will be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in
the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
2. Anticipation
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).

5
Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s position with respect to the teachings of Cook is that the
prior art combination of pulsed input signal and the PWM used for detecting
obstacles (Br. 8; Reply Br. 4) is not the same as the claimed using the same
signal for both functions (Br. 7; Reply Br. 4). We disagree. As asserted by
the Examiner (Answer 4), we find that there is nothing in the claims that
requires using only the pulse modulated signal to determine an obstruction
and exclude the other signals from making obstacle determination.
We also note that contrary to Appellant’s assertion that Cook uses
PWM signal for controlling the motor while pulsed input signal provides the
motor’s current measurement (Reply Br. 5), pulsed input signals are used
both for controlling motor speed (FF 4 & 5) and obstacle detection (FF 8)
although the duty cycle of drive motor is adjusted using pulse width
modulation of the signal (FF 7). As long as the pulsed input signal is, in
some way, used to control the speed of motor movement (FF 5 & 7) and to
detect obstruction (FF 8), the broad recitation of “applying” and “using”
pulse modulation information in the claims reads on the control method of
Cook.
Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claims and
considering our analysis above, we find that Cook anticipates the subject
matter recited in claim 12 as the reference teaches all the recited features.
Additionally, Appellant does not argue claim 17 separately from claim 12
(Br. 7-10) and thus, allows claim 17 to fall with claim 12.
With respect to the rejection of claims 13 and 16, Appellant argues
that the portion of Cook in columns 3 and 9 relied on by the Examiner
contain unrelated concepts and do not teach the maximum allowed force
6
Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523

recited in the claims (Reply Br. 5-6). We disagree and find that both
portions of Cook relate to using the relative ratio of pulse intervals to
determine that the force imparted by the motor has exceeded a force
threshold and therefore, an obstacle has been encountered (FF 8-10).
Therefore, we find that Cook anticipates the subject matter of claims 13 and
16 as Appellant has failed to show any errors in the Examiner’s position.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 14 and 15, we note Appellant’s
arguments that Cook’s learned value (col. 6, ll. 15-33) is not a force
threshold value (Br. 11; Reply Br. 7). Although the Examiner has not
specifically pointed to a force threshold value in Cook that is determined
during a learning mode or from memory (Answer 5-6), we find that the
portions relied on by the Examiner are reasonably related to the claimed
features. Additionally, by way of embellishing upon the Examiner’ analysis,
we find that the door system of Cook does provide for determining the
characteristics of the door during a learning mode (FF 12) such that motion
characteristics of the door are learned. Among these characteristics are
those described by Cook in subsequent passages such as door position and
pulse intervals which are indicative of the close and open positions of the
door (FF 11) as well as other characteristics such as the force imparted by
the motor (FF 9) or the force threshold value. Additionally, we find that the
predetermined value of 100 Newtons (FF 10) defines a value that is stored
and may be obtained from memory, as recited in claim 15. Thus, we find no
error in the Examiner’s position finding claims 14 and 15 anticipated by
Cook.

7
Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the
Examiner has erred in rejecting the claims or the rejection is not supported
by a legally sufficient basis for holding that Cook anticipated the claimed
subject matter. In view of our analysis above, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 rejection of claims 12-17 over Cook.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 12-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
8
Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523

AFFIRMED

eld

FITCH EVEN TABIN AND FLANNERY
120 SOUTH LA SALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO IL 60603-3406
9