Ex Parte Guinart et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 9, 201914005458 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/005,458 10/01/2013 466 7590 YOUNG & THOMPSON 209 Madison Street Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 05/13/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Nicolas Guinart 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. 0563-1242 1017 EXAMINER CASS, JEANPAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2019 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): DocketingDept@young-thompson.com yandtpair@firs ttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NICOLAS GUINART, JEROME MONTIGNY, JACQUES DELAIRE, and OLIVIER FUDULEA Appeal2017-008761 Application 14/005,458 1 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEP AN ST AI CO VICI, and EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-14. Final Office Action (October 16, 2015, "Final Act."). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellants' counsel presented argument at an oral hearing on April 25, 2019. 1 Appellants identify Continental Automotive France and Continental Automotive GmbH as the real parties in interest. Appeal Brief (June 8, 2016, "Appeal Br.") 1. Appeal2017-008761 Application 14/005,458 The Examiner rejected the claims as being obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art. Appellants contest the Examiner's stated reason for combining the prior art teachings in the manner claimed. For the reasons explained below, we find that the Examiner has failed to articulate adequate reasoning to support a conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Thus, we REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter on appeal relates to a method for locating the position of wheels of a motor vehicle equipped with an electronic module. Specification (September 16, 2013, "Spec.") at 1:1-2. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below. 1. A method for locating the position of the wheels (1-4) of a vehicle (V), the vehicle comprising: r wheels (1-4) , each equipped with an electronic module (5-8), integrating means (9) for measuring the angular position of said electronic module, and a transmitter ( 10) for transmitting signals comprising data representing operational parameters of each of said wheels and an identification code of said electronic module, positioned on the vehicle (V) close to each of the wheels (1-4), a wheel speed sensor (13-16) providing, in the form of values convertible into angular values, data representing orientation of the respective one of the wheels (1-4), and mounted on the vehicle (V), a central processing unit (11), provided with a receiver (12) for receiving signals coming from the electronic modules ( 5-8) and connected to the different wheel speed sensors (13-16), said method for locating the position of a wheel ( 1-4) compnsmg: the electronic module ( 5-8) equipping the wheel delivering, at a time t 1, a signal called the first signal RF 1, 2 Appeal2017-008761 Application 14/005,458 transmitted for a given angular position of said electronic module, and then at successive times 12, 13 ... tn, (n-1) signals RF2 ... RFn transmitted for angular positions of said electronic module shifted by determined angular values, 82 to 8n respectively, with respect to the angular position of transmission of the first signal, where 0° :S 8i :S 3 60° (i = 2 ton), each of then signals RPI ... RFn comprising the identification code of the electronic module ( 5-8) and data representing the angular position of transmission, and the central processing unit (11 ): gathering the values convertible into angular values 81 to On measured by each of the r wheel speed sensors (13-16), at each of the successive times t1 to tn, calculating, for each series of angular values 81 to On corresponding to the values measured by each wheel measuring sensor (13-16), a characteristic value Vnl, Vn2 ... V nr representing the dispersion of the series of values 01, (81 - 82) ... (On - 8n), selecting, by comparison of the r characteristic values Vnl, Vn2 ... Vnr, the most closely grouped series of angular values 81, (81 - 82) ... (on - 8n), and allocating the identification code of the electronic module ( 5-8) to the position of the wheel ( 1-4) located close to the wheel speed sensor (13-16) which is the source of the most closely grouped series of angular values 81, (81 - 82) ... (On - 8n). Appeal Br. 13-14 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS The Final Office Action includes the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 2, 12, and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US 2003/0197603 Al, published October 23, 2003) ("Stewart") and Linda et al. (US 2010/0256887 Al, published October 7, 2010) ("Linda"). 3 Appeal2017-008761 Application 14/005,458 2. Claims 3-11 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart, Linda, and Lin (US 5,363,300, issued November 8, 1994). ANALYSIS In the rejection of independent claim 1, the Examiner found that Stewart teaches the method of locating the position of the wheels of a vehicle, except that Stewart does not disclose connecting the central processing unit to the wheel speed sensors, gathering values from the wheel speed sensors, and allocating the identified code of the electronic module to the position of the wheel. Final Act. 7-9. The Examiner found that Linda discloses the use of wheel speed sensors in a vehicle control system to provide a diagnosis of a loss of road grip and slip. Id. at 8-9. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stewart's method to incorporate the wheel speed sensors of Linda to control torque and regain road grip for increased safety. Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner's reason for modifying Stewart with the teaching of Linda in the manner claimed is inadequate because Stewart discloses "a complete system" for determining wheel position that "does not need a speed sensor" and Linda discloses "a system for dynamically controlling movement of a vehicle that uses speed sensors [ and that] does not discuss or consider determining a location of a wheel." Appeal Br. 7-8. Appellants argue that "it is not clear what the motivation is for the artisan to connect [Linda's] speed sensors to [Stewart's] central processing unit that performs the wheel location functions." Id. at 8-9. The Examiner responds that "both the Linda, and the Stewart references use the same parameters to arrive at the conclusion that the wheel 4 Appeal2017-008761 Application 14/005,458 is slipping." Examiner's Answer (October 20, 2016, "Ans.") 8. Based on this finding, the Examiner reasons that the "nature of the problem to be solved" would have led one to the proposed combination. Id. The Examiner's reasoning is based on a finding that is not supported by the prior art. As noted by Appellants, Stewart does not disclose a system for monitoring wheel slippage. Reply Brief (March 24, 2017, "Reply Br.") 3. Instead, Stewart's system uses an accelerometer to determine a direction of rotation of a wheel, which it uses to determine position information ( e.g., left or right side) for the wheel. See, e.g., Stewart ,r,r 14-18, 104, and 119-121. Stewart's system uses the received signal strength to determine position information (e.g., front or rear) for the wheel. See id. ,r 129. Stewart discloses using this system for automatically updating position information for tire monitors, which are used to monitor tire characteristics, such as tire pressure. Id. ,r,r 2-3. Linda, by contrast, discloses a system for diagnosing loss of road grip of a wheel that uses wheel speed sensors, but it does not disclose using wheel speed sensors for determining position information for wheels of a vehicle. Linda, Abst. The Examiner has failed to explain adequately how the proposed addition of Linda's system for diagnosing loss of road grip using wheel speed sensors to Stewart's tire monitoring and wheel position location system, would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to use the wheel speed sensors of Linda to determine the position of the wheels in Stewart's system. In other words, the Examiner has not explained adequately how the combined teachings would have resulted in a central processing unit that uses angular values measured by wheel speed sensors to determine the position of the wheels of a vehicle. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's 5 Appeal2017-008761 Application 14/005,458 obviousness rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 2, 12, and 14, as unpatentable over Stewart and Linda. The Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3-11 and 13 as unpatentable over Stewart, Linda, and Lin is based on the same deficient reasoning discussed above. Thus, we also do not sustain this second ground of rejection. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-14 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation