Ex Parte Hub

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2017

12812182 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/812,182 07/08/2010 Thomas Hub 5029-685PUS-307305.000 4780
27799 7590
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park Avenue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
05/19/2017 EXAMINER
KAN, YURI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2017 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):
patentsecretary @ cozen. com
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS HUB
Appeal 2014-002088
Application 12/812,1821
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas Hub (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 6—11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellant identifies “Siemens AG” as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-002088
Application 12/812,182
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10, the independent claims on appeal, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter and are reproduced below.
6. A device for centering a vehicle in a test stand that has at
least two pairs of rollers for at least one of front wheels and rear
wheels of the vehicle, at least one of the two rollers of each pair
of rollers being movable by motor about a longitudinal axis, the
device comprising:
a measurement system for measuring a position of the
vehicle; and
a controller coupled to a steering system of the vehicle,
the controller varying a steering angle of at least one of the
front wheels and rear wheels of the vehicle as a function of data
received from the measurement system to position the vehicle
in a center of the test stand.
Appeal Br. 8, Claims App.
10. A method for centering a vehicle in a test stand, at least
one of the front wheels and the rear wheels each resting on a
pair of rollers, one of two rollers of said pair of rollers being
moved by a motor about a longitudinal axis, the method
comprising:
a) measuring, by a measuring system, data relating to a
position of the vehicle; and
b) varying, by a controller, a steering angle of at least one
of the front wheels and rear wheels to position the vehicle in a
center of the test stand, the controller being coupled to a
steering system of the vehicle.
Id. at 9.
Rejections
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
I. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kusters
(US 2003/0183023 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2003); and
2
Appeal 2014-002088
Application 12/812,182
II. Claims 6—9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kusters and Nobis (US 6,404,486 Bl, iss. June 11, 2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claim 10, reproduced above, is directed to “[a] method for centering a
vehicle in a test stand . . . comprising: . . . varying, by a controller, a steering
angle of at least one of the front wheels and rear wheels to position the
vehicle in a center of the test stand . . . .” Appeal Br. 9, Claims App. The
Examiner finds that Kusters teaches each and every limitation of claim 10.
Final Act. 2—3 (mailed Feb. 15, 2013). In particular, the Examiner finds that
Kusters’ teaching—that “the test vehicle is rotated or positioned around the
center of the mobile undercarriage, or test stand or platform”—is “equivalent
to teaching centering or positioning the vehicle in a center of the test stand.”
Id. at 3 (relying on Figure 1 of Kusters).
Appellant asserts that “[mjerely placing a vehicle on a test stand to
simulate . . . road conditions is not the same” as “varying, by a controller, a
steering angle of at least one of the front wheels and rear wheels to position
the vehicle in a center of the test stand,” as recited in claim 10. Appeal
Br. 4—5. Appellant contends that Figure 1 of Kusters does not depict
positioning the vehicle at the center of the test stand. Id. at 6; see Reply
Br. 3^4.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner states:
The Examiner finds this is equivalent to [sic] step of
positioning the vehicle in a center of the test stand, because
3
Appeal 2014-002088
Application 12/812,182
centering vehicle on a test stand is equivalent to positioning [a]
vehicle on a test stand via lateral or transverse movements (such
as yaw rotations, pitch rotations and roll rotations, which are
rotations or movements about the vertical axis, the transverse
axis and the longitudinal axis of the vehicle) carried out.
Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that “Fig. 1 actually shows that the
vehicle is positioned in the center of the test stand.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the ability to move the vehicle using
“lateral or transverse movements, yaw rotations, pitch rotations and roll
rotations” does not disclose necessarily “varying a steering angle of at least
one of the front wheels and rear wheels ... to position the vehicle in the
center of a test stand,” as claimed. In particular, we agree with Appellant
that Kusters is directed primarily to performing tests on the vehicle after it is
positioned on a test stand, whereas this limitation of claim 10 recites
positioning the vehicle in the center of the test stand. With respect to the
Examiner’s position that “centering [the] vehicle on a test stand is equivalent
to positioning [the] vehicle on a test stand via lateral or transverse
movements,” we disagree. We do not find the ability to move the vehicle,
once on the test stand, equivalent to positioning the vehicle in the center of
the test stand. Additionally, the Examiner has not shown where, if at all,
Kusters discloses how the vehicle is mounted on the test stand, even
assuming one or more of the figures show the vehicle centered on the stand.2
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
2 Figure 1 of Kusters, however, does not illustrate the vehicle itself on the
test stand.
4
Appeal 2014-002088
Application 12/812,182
Rejection II
Independent claim 6 is directed to a device for centering a vehicle in a
test stand and similarly recites “a controller coupled to a steering system of
the vehicle, the controller varying a steering angle of at least one of the front
wheels and rear wheels ... to position the vehicle in a center of the test
stand.” Appeal Br. 8, Claims App. The Examiner relies upon Kusters as
teaching this limitation, as discussed above in the context of claim 10. Final
Act. 3^4. The Examiner does not rely upon Nobis as teaching this limitation
of claim 6.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the context of Rejection I,
we do not sustain Rejection II.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6—11.
REVERSED
5