Ex Parte Hamada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2013

10815765 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte CHIAKI HAMADA and AKIFUMI DOURA
____________________

Appeal 2010-010165
Application 10/815,765
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010165
Application 10/815,765
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
15. App. Br. 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An oral hearing for this appeal was held on December 6, 2012.
We affirm-in-part.

The claims are directed to a vehicle braking control device for
controlling braking force distribution (BFD) when anti-skid (ABS) braking
is engaged subsequently and/or alternatively. This is said to avoid
deterioration of the braking controllability of the vehicle. Spec. 3. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A device for controlling a braking of a vehicle having
front and rear wheels, comprising:
a braking system generating braking forces on the
respective wheels,
at least one sensor monitoring an operational condition of
the vehicle including a detector detecting an amount of a
braking action by a driver of the vehicle, and
a controller that is configured to execute an anti-skid
control and that is configured to execute a braking force
distribution control in which braking force on the front wheels
is increased in comparison with braking force on the rear
wheels when an operational condition monitored by a sensor
among the at least one sensor satisfies a predetermined
condition, wherein:
braking force on the front wheels during execution of the
braking force distribution control is increased, where a braking
force increment on the front wheel is determined based upon an
increment of the braking action by the driver detected by the
detector; however, when execution of the anti-skid control for
either of the front wheels is started during the braking force
distribution control, the braking force increment on the front
wheels is decreased during the braking force distribution
control.
Appeal 2010-010165
Application 10/815,765
3
REJECTION
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Watanabe (US 2002/0185913 A1, pub. Dec. 12, 2002). Ans.
3.

OPINION
Starting ABS control during BFD control
Appellants assert that Watanabe does not describe starting antiskid
(ABS) control during braking force distribution (BFD) control, and therefore
does not describe decreasing the braking force on the front wheel during
BFD control in the event that ABS control is started during BFD control.
App. Br. 25-26. In particular, Appellants assert that Watanabe describes
whether BFD control should be allowed in Figure 4 and paragraph [0075] of
Watanabe and does not consider starting ABS control during BFD control.
As the Examiner correctly found, however, Figure 4 of Watanabe
describes a microcomputer 92, interpreted by the Examiner as the recited
“controller,” executing part of a control process. Ans. 3. This part is shown
as S30 in Figure 3, which is performed repeatedly as part of the loop shown
in Figure 3, starting from when the vehicle ignition is turned on. Watanabe,
para. [0067]. No single iteration of the loop shown in Figures 3 and 4 will
show starting either ABS or BFD control. However, changes in the control
between repeated iterations of the control program will “start” ABS control
(calculating target pressure Pti at S20) and/or BFD control (calculating
pressure increase amount at S80) when the calculated control is applied (at
S120). Watanabe, paras. [0068], [0072], [0081].
The Examiner correctly found that Watanabe describes a controller
configured to execute ABS control and BFD control simultaneously when
Appeal 2010-010165
Application 10/815,765
4
both of the front wheels are under ABS control. Ans. 9, last full paragraph.
The Examiner further found that ABS is started by applying the calculated
Pti as described in Watanabe paragraph [0062]. Ans. 10. As Watanabe
describes ABS as a background condition which goes into the calculation of
the target pressure, and then goes on to describe particular conditions under
which BFD may not be allowed, the best interpretation of the art is that the
microcomputer 92 may allow, and thus execute, ABS control during any
iteration of the cycle shown in Figure 3. Appellants assert that Watanabe
does not consider starting ABS control in Figure 4 because that process
determines whether BFD control is allowed. App. Br. 26. Appellants assert
(Reply Br. 2) that there is a difference between BFD control being allowed
in Watanabe step 37 and BFD being performed. This argument does not
appear to provide a meaningful distinction when comparing Watanabe to the
apparatus claims before us. Actual execution of BFD control and ABS
control is not required by the claims. Rather, claims 1 and 12 require a
controller configured to do so. Appellants have not apprised us of any error
in the Examiner’s determination that the controller of Watanabe is
configured to execute ABS control during BFD control.

Decreasing the braking force when ABS is started
Appellants assert that Watanabe does not disclose decreasing the
braking force on the front wheels during braking in the event that ABS
control is started. Appellants instead assert that the braking force is solely
increased by a pressure amount A’ at S110. App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 3.
Again, we note that claims 1 and 12 are directed to a control device
having a controller rather than to a method. Therefore, Watanabe need only
Appeal 2010-010165
Application 10/815,765
5
be configured to execute the function described in the last three lines of
claims 1 and 12.
The device 92 of Watanabe is a controller which controls braking
force to each wheel. Watanabe, Abstract; Ans. 3. It performs this function by
repeatedly cycling through the decisions shown in Figure 3 and outputting a
signal that controls the brake force on each wheel. Watanabe, para. [0073].
While the calculations shown in Figure 3 do show adding a factor A’ in Step
110 to the front wheel, this “addition” does not mean that the braking force
is increased in a subsequent predetermined time period compared to what the
vehicle is currently experiencing.
The current braking conditions (i.e., Step S10) are the output of the
controller’s previous cycle of Figure 3, which made the same calculations.
The newly calculated braking force may be higher, the same, or lower than
the current braking force, depending on changes in driver input 96
(Watanabe, fig. 1B), vehicle lateral acceleration 98, vehicle speed 104,
steering angle 102 and ABS control activation (Watanabe, para. [0062]).
Watanabe does not expressly describe every possible contingency the
microcomputer is configured to execute BFD and ABS control in response
to. However, the mere recitation of particular acts the controller is
configured to execute is not sufficient to structurally distinguish the claimed
invention from Watanabe when Watanabe’s microcomputer will execute
those same acts in response to a particular set of circumstances Watanabe’s
microcomputer may encounter.
Therefore, the Examiner correctly found that Watanabe describes a
controller configured to decrease braking force to the front wheels “when”
ABS control is engaged during BFD control. Ans. 4. The same controller
would contemporaneously decrease braking force to the front wheels if, for
Appeal 2010-010165
Application 10/815,765
6
example, the value in S40 of Figure 3 decreased. Absent from claims 1 and
12 is any requirement that the decrease of the braking force increment be
caused by the start of execution of anti-skid control.
We therefore affirm the rejections of claims 1 and 12.

Dependent claims
The Examiner has stated that the prior art anticipates the dependent
claims as a result of anticipation of the parent claims. Ans. 10. This is an
incorrect statement of the law. The Examiner has also cited the same
portions of Watanabe as factual support for the rejections of each of claims
2-11 and 13-15. As these portions of Watanabe were previously cited in the
rejection of the independent claims, this citation without additional
explanation does little to buttress the position of the Examiner. Appellants
have argued the rejections of claims 2-4 and 13-15 in varying degrees of
specificity, and these claims will be addressed in turn. Appellants have
waived the right to have separate consideration of claims 5-11 which are not
separately argued. Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F. 3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 13 requires that the controller be configured such that
a rate of decreasing the front wheel braking force when an
operational condition monitored by a sensor among the at least
one sensor satisfies a predetermined condition for terminating
the braking force distribution control is faster than a rate of
decreasing the front wheel braking force when anti-skid control
for either of the wheels is executed.
It is not apparent and the Examiner does not explain what the
Examiner regards as the predetermined condition satisfied by the sensor for
terminating the BFD. While Watanabe uses the sensor 96 identified by the
Examiner to compare the master cylinder pressure Pm to a reference value
Appeal 2010-010165
Application 10/815,765
7
Pmo this does not appear to be a condition for terminating BFD control. Cf
Watanabe, fig. 4, Step S31 and Application fig. 6, step S60. We therefore
reverse the rejection of claim 13.
With respect to claim 2, Appellants assert that Watanabe does not
disclose that the braking force on the rear wheels is increased when the anti-
skid control is executed. App. Br. 32. As noted above with respect to claim
1, Watanabe shows a calculation for independent braking force that depends
on factors including vehicle speed, angular acceleration and turning angle.
Watanabe, fig. 3. With appropriate inputs, it is apparent that the controller of
Watanabe will increase the braking force on the rear wheels when ABS
control is activated. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, Appellants assert that Watanabe does not
describe a device where the braking force increment on the front wheel is
decreased until the increase reaches to zero. App. Br. 32. It is apparent that
the device of Watanabe continuously controls the braking system from the
point of ignition of the vehicle, and that the ABS control and BFD control
are largely emergency and/or transitory conditions after which the driver
will either come to a complete stop or stop braking, at which time the
controller of Watanabe will decrease the braking force increment on the
front wheel to zero. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Appellants assert that Watanabe does not
describe a device where the decreasing of the braking force increment on the
front wheel is interrupted if the anti-skid control is terminated but the
increment does not reach zero. App. Br. 32. The term “if” implies the
controller is programmed to have a conditional relationship between the
interruption of the decrease in the braking force increment and the
termination of anti-skid control. Absent findings or reasoning from the
Appeal 2010-010165
Application 10/815,765
8
Examiner, the pertinence of Figures 1-5, paragraphs 0008, 0009, 0019-0021,
0062, 0068, 0075, and the abstract of Watanabe to this limitation is not
apparent. Therefore, we must reverse the rejection of claim 4.
With respect to claim 14, Appellants assert that Watanabe does not
describe a device where the braking force on the front wheel is decreased
until the braking force reaches a braking force requested by the braking
action by the driver. App. Br. 32. As noted above with respect to claim 3, it
is apparent from Watanabe that the driver will eventually stop the vehicle or
remove all force from the brake pedal, at which point the braking force will
be the requested braking force. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim
14.
With respect to claim 15, Appellants assert that Watanabe does not
restrict the increase of the rear wheel braking force during execution of the
braking force distribution control but allows it when anti-skid control for
either of the wheels is executed or when an operational condition monitored
by a sensor among the at least one sensor satisfies a predetermined condition
for terminating the braking force distribution control. App. Br. 32. It is
apparent that Watanabe restricts increase in rear wheel braking when under
BFD control (Abstract), and does not appear to restrict rear wheel braking
force increase when not under BFD control, which could occur during anti-
skid control or the sensed Pm condition. We therefore affirm the rejection of
claim 15.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14 and 15 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 13 is reversed.

Appeal 2010-010165
Application 10/815,765
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls