Ex parte Gowan et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 28, 2000

08950130 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 28, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JOHN J. GOWAN
and
THOMAS T. GRIFFITH
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1481
Application No. 08/950,130
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, McQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 and 2, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 2
Application No. 08/950,130
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to an antiskid control
system. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellants' brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Cook et al. (Cook) 4,530,058 July 16,
1985
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cook.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed October 1, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 11,
filed June 28, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed
November 29, 1999) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 3
Application No. 08/950,130
Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 4
Application No. 08/950,130
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination
follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the
claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 5
Application No. 08/950,130
The teachings of Cook are adequately set forth on pages1
8-11 of the brief.
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 2-3) that Cook shows
a PBM control algorithm (see table 3a)[.] The term
integral-based is meaningless. The PBM control algorithm
of Cook et al. is integral based to the same degree
claimed. Cook et al. further show a control current of 1
milliamp (see column 8, lines 42-55) and a high stepping
current of 10 milliamps which is utilized if the PBM is
greater than the LOW PBM. Since LOW PBM is a value which
is set to a value which is based on a vehicle speed (see
column 8, lines 48-68) then the LOW PBM has different
values at low and high speeds. The claimed invention
differs only in the use of a multi-gain valve. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have utilized a multi-gain valve in the system of Cook et
al. instead of a single gain valve so as to more
precisely control the brake pressure or as a substitute
of known valve types.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 12-14) that Cook does1
not teach the dual-PBM threshold concept that underlies the
present invention wherein the first threshold triggers a
highstep firing at high wheelspeeds and the second threshold
triggers a highstep firing at low wheelspeeds. In the reply
Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 6
Application No. 08/950,130
brief (pp. 1-2), the appellants state that they do not find
support for the examiner's position that Cook teaches that
"LOW PBM has different values at low and high speeds."
After reviewing the teachings of Cook, especially those
portions cited by the examiner, we find ourselves in agreement
with the appellants' position that Cook does not teach that
LOWPBM has different values at low and high speeds (i.e., dual
pressure bias modulation thresholds wherein one threshold is
active at low wheelspeeds and the other threshold is active at
high wheelspeeds). Thus, the modification to Cook found by
the examiner to have been obvious does not arrive at the
Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 7
Application No. 08/950,130
Claim 1 reads as follows:2
In an antiskid control system for a multigain
hydraulic brake system that includes a multigain antiskid
hydraulic valve, an integral-based pressure bias
modulation control algorithm for producing an antiskid
control current for application to said multigain
antiskid hydraulic valve, and a pressure bias modulation
high step current that overrides the antiskid control
current when the antiskid control current exceeds a
pressure bias modulation threshold, the improvement
comprising dual pressure bias modulation thresholds, one
threshold being active at low wheelspeeds and the other
being active at high wheelspeeds.
claimed invention since the improvement clause of claim 1 is2
not taught or suggested by Cook.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1, and claim 2 dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 8
Application No. 08/950,130
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 9
Application No. 08/950,130
CHRISTENSEN O'CONNOR
JOHNSON & KINDNESS
1420 5TH AVE
STE 2800
SEATTLE, WA 98101-2347
Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 10
Application No. 08/950,130
JVN/dl