Ex Parte Huther

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 9, 2008

10753975 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 9, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SEBASTIAN HUTHER
____________

Appeal 2007-0767
Application 10/753,975
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: January 9, 2008
____________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE, III, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and DAVID
B. WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE, III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 and 4-7. Claims
2 and 3 have been cancelled. These are the only claims in the application.
A proposed Amendment to the claims noted in the Appendix to the
Appeal Brief has not been entered by the Examiner. The refusal to enter the
Amendment was noted in an Advisory Action mailed October 26, 2006. We
Appeal 2007-0767
Application 10/753,975

2

have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The
claimed invention is directed to a braking device for an industrial truck
which uses an electric drive motor and an electromagnetic brake on the load
bearing wheels. The brake system is characterized by a brake pedal having
an analog electric position detector 34 and first and second signal transmitter
38, 36 which transmit braking control signals to a brake control unit 22.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A braking device for an industrial truck, comprising an
electromagnetic brake unit on a load-bearing wheel and/or driving
motor, a brake pedal having a rest and an end position and positions
between the rest and the end position, the positions of the pedal being
detected by an electric position detector which generates an analog
electric braking signal, and a brake control unit into which the analog
braking signal is input and which generates a control signal to actuate
the brake unit electromagnetically in response to the analog braking
signal, a first signal transmitter being provided associated with the
end position of the brake pedal, connected to the brake control unit
and having a range of response, which transmitter provides a first
signal to the brake control unit when the brake pedal is within the
range of response of the first signal transmitter so that the brake
control unit generates a first control signal for the brake unit causing a
hard stop independent of whether an analog electric braking signal
has been generated, the brake pedal being associated with a second
signal transmitter in a way that it provides a second signal to the brake
control unit when the brake pedal has traveled through a first short
actuation path from the rest position, the brake control unit generating
a release signal for allowing the generation of a second control signal
for the brake unit when the position detector has generated the analog
braking signal at the same time, and the brake control unit generating
an alarm signal when the braking signal has not a predetermined
magnitude upon generation of the second signal.

Appeal 2007-0767
Application 10/753,975

3

The references of record relied upon by the Examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:

Klein US 4,327,414 Apr. 27, 1982
Padula US 5,439,275 Aug. 8, 1995
Takeda US 5,653,515 Aug. 5, 1997
Akao (as translated) JP 2002-255498 Sep. 11, 2002

Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Akao in view of Takeda.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Akao in view of Takeda and further in view of Klein.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Akao in view of Takeda and further in view of Padula.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner. As a result of this review, we
have reached the conclusion that the applied prior art does not establish the
prima facie obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Therefore the
rejections on appeal are reversed. Our reasons follow.
The following comprise our finding of facts with respect to the scope
and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the
claimed subject matter. Akao discloses a forklift or industrial truck with
wheels and electric motor 11 and an electromagnetically controlled braking
unit 12 on the motor 11. Akao further discloses a brake pedal 7 having an
electrical potentiometer-type position detector 18 and two signal transmitters
Appeal 2007-0767
Application 10/753,975

4

16, 17 which feed into a controller 50. We further note that Akao does not
disclose an alarm. Takeda has been cited to disclose an alarm.
The disagreement between the Appellant and the Examiner is with
respect to the function of the first and second signal transmitters 16, 17 of
the Akao device. In Akao, signal transmitter 16 detects the release of the
brake pedal. (Akao ¶ 29). Signal transmitter 17 detects full depression of
the brake pedal. (Akao ¶ 30). When transmitter switch 16 detects initial
depression of the brake pedal, the brake is released but the motor is not
actuated until signal transmitter 17 detects that the pedal has reached its end
position. When the end position travel of the pedal is detected by signal
transmitter 17, the motor is actuated and the industrial truck is capable of
movement. We are thus in agreement with Appellant that whether the
Examiner reads the first signal transmitter as switch 16 or switch 17, neither
of these signal transmitters works to ensure that the brake controlling unit
generates a first control signal for the brake unit causing a hard stop
independent of whether an analog electric brake signal has been generated.
Since Akao does not disclose this function of a first signal transmitter, it is
our view that the combined teachings of Akao and Takeda would not have
made the claimed subject matter obvious to one of ordinary skill. The
disclosure of Klein and Padula cannot ameliorate the shortcomings we have
found in the combined teachings of Akao and Takeda. Therefore we are
constrained to reverse all rejections on appeal.
Appeal 2007-0767
Application 10/753,975

5

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The rejections of claims 1 and 4-7 are reversed.

REVERSED

hh

VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.
SUITE 400, 6640 SHADY OAK ROAD
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344