Ex parte Keuper et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 17, 1999

08077419 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 17, 1999)

Application for patent filed June 15, 1993.1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision entered today (1) was not written for publication
in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________________
Ex parte GERHARD KEUPER, KARL-HEINZ SENGER,
and ROLAND STOLLER
__________________
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,4191
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and LEE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 11. No claim has
been allowed.
References relied on by the Examiner
Kawagoe et al. (Kawagoe) 4,827,416 May 02,
1989 Rapiejko et al. (Rapiejko) 5,001,647 Mar. 19,
1991 Shiraishi et al. (Shiraishi) 5,001,636 Mar.
19, 1991
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
2
Chan et al. (Chan) 5,021,987 June 04, 1991
Kamimura et al. (Kamimura) 5,003,770 July 23, 1991
Adachi et al. (Adachi) 5,058,017 Oct. 15, 1991
Majeed 5,071,157 Dec. 10, 1991
Kii et al. (Kii) 5,085,458 Feb. 04, 1992
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Majeed, Adachi, and Chan.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Kii, and
Rapiejko.
Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Rapiejko,
Kamimura, and Kawagoe.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Kamimura, and
Shiraishi.
The Invention
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
controlling the chassis of a vehicle based on a road surface-
fixed reference system that is dependent on corrections made
to a plurality of first signals. The plurality of first
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
3
signals represent movements of the vehicle relative to an
inertial reference system. Claim 1 is the sole method claim
and claim 11 is the sole apparatus claim. The applicants have
grouped claims 1 and 11 together for purposes of their
arguments in this appeal.
1. A method of controlling a chassis of a vehicle,
said vehicle including a chassis, a body, and a
plurality of wheels, said method comprising the
steps of:
sensing a plurality of first signals
representing movements of the vehicle relative to an
inertial reference system;
determining correction values for correcting
said first signals, said correction values being
dependent on a plurality of second signals which
represent one of relative movements between a said
body and a said plurality of wheels, longitudinal
movements of a said vehicle, and transverse
movements of a said vehicle;
providing corrected first signals dependent on
said correction values;
determining movements of the vehicle relative to
a road surface-fixed reference system dependent on
said corrected first signals; and
controlling the chassis dependent on said
determined movements.
11. A system for controlling a chassis of a
vehicle, said vehicle including a chassis, a body,
and a plurality of wheels, said system comprising:
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
4
a plurality of sensors providing first signals
representing movements of the vehicle relative to an
inertial reference system;
means for correcting said first signals
dependent on at least one correction value, said at
least one correction value being dependent on a
plurality of second signals which represent one of
relative movements between a said body and a said
plurality of wheels, longitudinal movements of a
said vehicle, and transverse movements of a said
vehicle; and
means for determining movements of a said
vehicle relative to a road surface-fixed reference
system dependent on said corrected first signals;
and
means for controlling said chassis, dependent on
said determined movements.
Opinion
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-6 and 11.
A reversal of any prior art rejection on appeal should
not be construed as an affirmative indication that the
appellant’s claims are patentable over prior art. We address
only the positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner
and on which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal
is based.
Claim 11 requires a plurality of sensors providing first
signals representing movements of the vehicle relative to an
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
5
inertial reference system. Claim 1 recites a corresponding
method step. Claim 11 requires a means for correcting the
first signals, dependent on a correction value that is
dependent on one of several factors. Claim 1 recites a
corresponding method step. Claim 11 requires a means for
determining movements of the vehicle relative to a road
surface-fixed reference system dependent on the corrected
first signals. Claim 1 recites a corresponding method step.
Claim 11 requires a means for controlling the chassis of the
vehicle, dependent on the determined movements. Claim 1
recites a corresponding step.
Both independent claims require that vehicle movement be
determined relative to a road surface-fixed reference system,
that the road surface-fixed reference system is dependent on
corrections made to a set of first signals, and that the first
signals represent movements of the vehicle relative to an
inertial reference system. The examiner’s treatment of these
claim limitations is disjointed and missing key relationships.
What the examiner has done is (1) find in Majeed a
vehicle chassis control system which uses an inertial
reference system, (2) find in Adachi a vehicle chassis control
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
6
system which, according to the examiner, uses a road surface-
fixed reference system as an addition to the pre-existing
vehicle chassis control system, and then (3) conclude that it
would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art,
based on Adachi, to add a step of determining vehicle movement
relative to the road surface[-fixed] reference system “from
the corrected vehicle movement signals as disclosed by Majeed”
(answer, at page 4, lines 1-3).
The examiner’s reasoning is largely disjointed, contains
errors regarding the teachings from the prior art, and also
ignores certain claim features.
First, we agree with the appellants that Adachi discloses
only an inertial reference system and not a road surface-fixed
reference system. See the last sentence in appellants’ reply
brief on page 1. It is evident that the reference by the
appellants to an inertial reference system in the last
sentence of the first paragraph on page 2 of the reply brief
is a mistake and is intended to refer to a “road surface-fixed
reference system” rather than to an “inertial reference
system.”
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
7
The appellants’ specification reveals that an inertial
reference system does not take into account inclination
changes of the road surface, whereas a road surface-fixed
reference system is without the effects of changes in the road
surface. What the examiner regards as a road surface-fixed
reference system in Adachi (column 3, lines 51-69; column 4,
lines 38-63; column 5, lines 1-55) is one which detects
attitude changes in the vehicle body, i.e., pitching and
rolling due to a number of causes including bumps or holes on
the road surface. Such a system does not remove the effects
of changes in inclination of the road surface. We agree with
the appellants that motion due to changes in road surface
inclination cannot be equated with motion detected in a road
surface-fixed reference system. The examiner has not properly
applied the meaning of road surface-fixed reference system in
the context of the appellants’ specification. The examiner
erroneously regards vehicle pitching or rolling due to road
surface changes as motion in a road surface-fixed reference
system. See Examiner’s Answer at page 3, lines 17-23).
Moreover, even if we regard Adachi’s attitude change
detection as a road surface-fixed reference system, it is
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
8
independent of any other separate inertial reference system.
According to the claimed invention, the road surface-fixed
reference system must be “dependent” on corrected first
signals which first signals represent movements of the vehicle
relative to an inertial reference system. The examiner cites
Chan as teaching the conversion from an inertial vehicle
reference system to a road surface-fixed reference system.
However, the objective of Chan is entirely different. As is
stated in Chan’s column 17, lines 27-38:
Sensor data therefore includes the effects of any
aircraft motion. To reduce the system false alarm
rate to an acceptable level, potential threats must
be tracked in an inertial coordinate system.
Effects of aircraft motion must therefore be
eliminated from the raw sensor data before tracking
can be done. Three rate-integrating gyros located
at the sensor and strapped down to the aircraft hull
will be able to measure motion caused by aircraft
maneuvers as well as motion caused by aircraft
vibrations, flexure and turbulence.
Chan’s teaching concerns aircrafts in flight, not wheeled
vehicles which travel by frictional contact between wheels and
the road surface. Road surface-fixed reference, in the
context of the appellants’ specification, has no meaningful
significance in Chan. Chan also seeks to eliminate all
effects of vehicle motion, not just those caused by changes in
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
9
road surface inclination. It cannot reasonably be said that
the end result of the conversion taught by Chan are signals
representing vehicle motion in a road-surface reference
system. Even if we assume that Chan teaches conversion of
signals representing vehicle motion from an inertial reference
system to a road surface-fixed reference system, which in our
view it does not, the examiner has not adequately explained
how in light of that teaching one with ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the disclosure of Majeed and Adachi to
arrive at the appellants’ claimed invention. The examiner
concludes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Majeed,
Adachi et al. and Chan et al.” (Examiner’s Answer at page 4).
But that is not a sufficient analysis to support the
rejection. Precisely how the combination is made to arrive at
the appellants’ claimed invention has not been set forth.
In the response section of the examiner’s answer (page
8), the examiner states the following about Majeed:
Majeed models vehicle motion by a mass-spring system
(see Fig. 5). The system responds road surface
condition inputs (see Col. 1, lines 31-32). It
would include knowledge of the transverse and
longitudinal inclinations of the road surface. The
mass-spring indirectly reflects vehicle movements in
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
10
the road surface reference. The spring-mass
deflection would indicate road conditions such as
road inclination, longitudinal and transverse
conditions as known in the art.
The above-quoted passage further reflects the misplaced
idea that detection of vehicle motion due to road surface
condition equates to detecting motion in a road surface-fixed
reference system. The examiner has not shown anything in
Majeed which reasonably would have suggested eliminating the
effects of road surface inclinations on detected vehicle
motion. The examiner further stated (answer at pages 8-9):
Even if Majeed and Adachi did not take road surface
as a fixed reference, practitioners in the art would
have found it obvious to refer road surface as a
fixed reference, because the vehicle moves in that
reference in order to control car driving
comfortability.
The statement is mere conclusory and unsupported by factual
evidence. Moreover, the appellants’ do not simply claim
reliance on a road surface-fixed reference. Instead, the road
surface-fixed reference system must be dependent on corrected
first signals, which first signals represent movement of the
vehicle relative to an inertial reference system.
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
11
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Majeed, Adachi, and Chan.
As for claims 2 and 3, each of which depends from claim
1, the examiner additionally applied Kii and Rapiejko to meet
the specific claim features recited therein. However, as
applied by the examiner, Kii and Rapiejko do not make up for
the deficiencies of Majeed, Adachi, and Chan as already
discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 2 and 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Majeed,
Adachi, Chan, Kii, and Rapiejko cannot be sustained.
As for claims 4 and 6, each of which depends indirectly
from claims 3 and 1, respectively, the examiner additionally
applied Kamimura and Kawagoe to meet the specific claim
features recited therein. However, as applied by the
examiner, Kamimura and Kawagoe do not make up for the
deficiencies of Majeed, Adachi, Chan, and Rapiejko, as already
discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 4 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Majeed,
Adachi, Chan, Rapiejko, Kamimura, and Kawagoe cannot be
sustained. Furthermore, the examiner’s statement of the
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
12
necessary motivation to combine teachings is mere conclusory
and the examiner has not specifically articulated just how the
teachings from the references give rise to the appellants’
claimed invention. Stating that it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Rapiejko,
Kamimura, and Kawagoe does not explain how these multiple
references are combined to arrive at the appellants’ claimed
invention.
As for claim 5, which depends from claim 4, the examiner
additionally applied Shiraishi to meet the specific claim
features recited therein. However, as applied by the
examiner, Shiraishi does not make up for the deficiencies of
Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Rapiejko, Kamimura, and Kawagoe as
already discussed above with respect to claims 4 and 6.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Kamimura, and
Shiraishi cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 as being unpatentable
over Majeed, Adachi, and Chan is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
13
The rejection of claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable
over Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Kii, and Rapiejko is reversed.
The rejection of claims 4 and 6 as being unpatentable
over Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Rapiejko, Kamimura, and Kawagoe is
reversed.
The rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over
Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Kamimura, and Shiraishi is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
14
Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
15
Anthony Niewyk
BAKER & DANIELS
111 East Wayne Street
Suite 800
Fort Wayne, IN 46802