Ex Parte HilbererDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 201612065810 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/065,810 08/29/2008 23911 7590 07/29/2016 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 14300 WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eduard Hilberer 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. 037068.60051 us 3941 EXAMINER BURCH, MELODY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2016 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): edocket@crowell.com tche@crowell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDUARD HILBERER Appeal2014-002736 Application 12/065,810 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Eduard Hilberer (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 7-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Claims 1---6 are canceled. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). Appeal2014-002736 Application 12/065,810 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 7, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter, with the key disputed limitation italicized. 7. A method for controlling a pneumatic brake system of a utility vehicle having a service brake and an electric parking brake, wherein an electronic control unit controls the electric parking brake, wherein, in an event of a circuit defect in the service brake, braking of the moving utility vehicle is assisted by the parking brake, and further wherein the electronic control unit controls the electric parking brake to provide braking assistance via venting spring-loaded cylinders of the parking brake in accordance with a predefined time/pressure characteristic curve. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REJECTIONS I. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch (US 2005/0029859 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2005) and Sharp (US 4, 179, 166, iss. Dec. 18, 1979). Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. II. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, and Stumpe (US 6,062,658, iss. May 16, 2000). Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. III. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, and DE '113 (DE 4235113, Oct. 17, 1992). Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. IV. Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, Stumpe, and DE '113. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. 2 Appeal2014-002736 Application 12/065,810 V. Claims 11and20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, and Okazaki (US 5,636,907, iss. June 10, 1997). Final Act. 4; Ans. 5. VI. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, Stumpe, and Okazaki. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. VII. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, DE '113, and Okazaki. Final Act. 6; Ans. 6. VIII. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, Okazaki, and Larson (US 2002/0036567 Al, pub. Mar. 28, 2002). Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 7. IX. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, Stumpe, Okazaki, and Larson. Final Act. 7; Ans. 7. X. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bensch, Sharp, DE '113, Okazaki, and Larson. Final Act. 8; Ans. 8. OPINION The dispositive issue in this case is whether the Examiner erred in combining Bensch and Sharp in such a manner that the braking response curve depicted in Sharp's Figure 5 would be used to control Bensch's parking brake assistance "to provide a means of enabling brake pressure decay in a controlled manner." Ans. 3. According to Appellant, the curve B depicted in Sharp's Figure 5 only discloses how "fluid pressure responds to actuation of the ABS pressure 3 Appeal2014-002736 Application 12/065,810 reducing hardware." Appeal Br. at 13 (emphasis added) (citing Sharp 6:44- 46 ("FIG. 5 shows a pressure/time curve which illustrates the effect the fluid control means of FIGS. 3 and 4 has on the rate of decay of fluid pressure at the brake.")). Appellant also argues that gradual application of the parking brake is the opposite of what one skilled in the art would consider desirable when the parking brake is being used as a backup in a hill-assist braking system: During hill-brake assist if there is a failure in the service brake system which is performing the hill-brake function, there is no need to slow the application of the parking brake at all - indeed, the faster the parking brake is applied in the event of a hill- holding service brake failure, the better. If anything, Bensch teaches that in the event of a hill-brake function failure, the immediate application of the parking brake is desired to prevent vehicle roll-away - in other words, Bensch teaches away from slowing parking brake application by controlling brake application "in accordance with a predefined time/pressure characteristic curve." Appeal Br. 1 7. The Examiner responds that Sharp is only relied on to disclose a predefined time/pressure characteristic curve, which would be used with Bensch's brake control application. Ans. 10. According to the Examiner, the curve in Sharp's Figure 5 would be used by one skilled in the art "to modify the brake application of Bensch to have been controlled using a predefined time/pressure characteristic curve ... to provide a means of preventing abrupt application of brakes which may cause jerking of the vehicle passengers," which "would be desired even in a hill-holding function." Id. 4 Appeal2014-002736 Application 12/065,810 Appellant replies that slowing the application of Bensch' s parking brake is "exactly the opposite of the fast-as-possible response needed in an emergency brake activation." Reply Br. 4. We agree with Appellant that Sharp does not teach controlling a brake application according to "a predetermined time/pressure characteristic curve." Sharp's Figure 5 discloses only a pressure/time curve representing the effect of the fluid flow control of Sharp's ABS system on a rate of pressure decrease at a brake. See Sharp 6:44--57. The curve is not disclosed as having any relation to control of the braking system. Regarding whether one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to employ Sharp's response curve to control parking brake application in Bensch, Bensch specifically states that unintentional rolling of the vehicle should be prevented if service brakes fail (see Bensch i-fi-1 46, 63), which one skilled in the art would understand means that an immediate response would be needed, rather than a response controlled via a pressure/time curve as proposed by the Examiner. To the extent that Bensch also addresses controlled, adjustable actuation of a parking brake if the parking brake is engaged while the vehicle is moving (see Bensch i-fi-1 78, 80, 99), the Examiner has not explained why one skilled in the art would expect Sharp's brake line pressure response curves to be used to control parking brake engagement in such a circumstance. We thus are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to employ Sharp's response curve for parking brake control in such a circumstance. For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the pending rejections, which are all based on the Examiner's combination of Bensch 5 Appeal2014-002736 Application 12/065,810 and Sharp, wherein Sharp's response curve would be used to control Bensch' s parking brake actuation. DECISION The pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are REVERSED. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation