Ex Parte Koelzer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2009

10663397 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT L. KOELZER
____________

Appeal 2009-006419
Application 10/663,397
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: September 21, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, JOHN C. KERINS, and
STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILLIAM F. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 69-74, 76-86 and
91. Claims 1-68 have been cancelled and claims 75 and 87-90 stand
withdrawn. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6.

Appeal 2009-006419
Application 10/663,397

2
The claimed invention is a system for regulating the supply of power
to a vehicle's brake system.
Claim 69, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
69. A system for regulating the supply of power to a vehicle's
brake system, comprising:

an engine;

a supply device driven by said engine for supplying an
agency;

a motor driven by the agency supplied by said supply
device;

a brake power source driven by said motor;

a brake system powered by said brake power source; and

an electronic control unit in communication with said
supply device that controls that rate at which the agency is
supplied by said supply device;

wherein said electronic control unit has at least one input
for receiving signals containing information reflecting air
pressure; and

wherein said electronic control unit determines the rate at
which to cause said supply device to supply the agency to said
motor based at least in part on the received information, thereby
causing said motor to drive said brake power source at a desired
rate.

Appeal 2009-006419
Application 10/663,397

3
REFERENCES
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Uwe (as translated) DE 3529743 A1 Feb. 26, 1987
Eslinger US 5,613,744 Mar. 25, 1997
Bruehmann US 6,089,831 Jul. 18, 2000
Koelzer US 6,439,857 B1 Aug. 27, 2002

REJECTIONS
Claims 69-73, 76-79, and 91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Uwe in view of Bruehmann.
Claims 74 and 82-86 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Uwe in view of Bruehmann, as applied to claim 69, and
further in view of Eslinger.
Claims 80-81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Uwe in view of Bruehmann, as applied to claim 79, and further in view
of Koelzer.
ISSUE
According to Appellant, neither Uwe nor Bruehmann discloses using
an electronic control unit to receive information reflecting air pressure and
using this information to control the rate at which a supply device supplies
an agency to a brake power source. Accordingly, the issue for our
consideration on appeal is whether Appellant has established that the
Examiner erred in finding that the applied prior art discloses an electronic
control element which controls the rate a supply device supplies an agency
to a brake power source motor.
Appeal 2009-006419
Application 10/663,397

4
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the
arguments of Appellant and the Examiner. As a result of this review, we
determine that Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in finding
the subject matter claimed prima facie obvious. Therefore, the rejections of
the claims on appeal are reversed. Our reasons follow.
The following comprises our Finding of Facts concerning the scope
and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the
claimed subject matter. Uwe discloses a supply device, motor 27 that drives
a compressor 28 for supply of air to an air brake system. See page 6, ll. 10-
20. The motor 27 is driven by an agency, i.e., hydraulic fluid supplied by
the pump 12 which is driven by the engine 10 of the vehicle. See page 6, ll.
2 and 3. However, in the Fig. 1 embodiment of Uwe, the pumps 11 and 12
are disclosed as constant output pumps, and the electronic control unit 53
does not vary any rate to cause the supply device, pump 12, to adjust the
supply of the agency to motor 27. We note for the record, however, that the
electronic control unit 53 has at least one input for receiving signals
containing air pressure information from the supercharger 25. See page 7, ll.
10-16.
In the Fig. 2 embodiment of Uwe, the pumps shown are two two-flow
or dual capacity pumps. See page 9, l. 8. In the Fig. 3 embodiment, Uwe
does disclose an adjustable pump 82, but this pump 82 is for supplying the
supercharger compressor while the two-flow pump is utilized by the braking
system, the generator, the cooling fan and the steering unit.
Finally, the Fig. 4 embodiment again shows a variable pump 95, but
the pump 95 appears to be merely pressure controlled by pressure control
Appeal 2009-006419
Application 10/663,397

5
valve 96. See page 11, l. 5. The outputs of the hydraulic motors 99, 100,
101, 102 are controlled electrically by the electronic control unit 53. See
page 11, ll. 7-15. Therefore, we are in agreement with Appellant that Uwe
does not disclose an electronic control unit which receives information
reflecting air pressure and uses this information to control the rate at which a
supply device supplies an agency to a brake power source motor.
To supply this missing teaching, the Examiner turns to the patent to
Bruehmann. Bruehmann discloses an air supply system for the air brakes of
a motor vehicle. The system includes drive motor 13, coupled electrically to
an air compressor 11. See col. 3, ll. 66 – col. 4, l. 6. Bruehmann works on
the principle that the electronic control unit 57 will control pilot valves 44.1,
44.2, 44.3, 44.4, and 44.5 to shift overflow valves 40.1 to 40.5 to control the
amount of air supplied to the pressure tanks 37.1 to 37.5. The electronic
control unit 57 is provided with temperature (col. 8, l. 1), humidity (col. 7, l.
66-67), and pressure ( col. 5, ll. 35-41) data to control the system. While we
agree with the Examiner that air pressure and temperature for controlling
compressor operation are well known in the art as demonstrated by
Bruehmann, we note that Bruehmann does not disclose using air pressure
and temperature to control a hydraulic pump or a supply device that supplies
fluid to a motor to drive a compressor. In fact, if the system of Bruehmann
were placed in the hydrostatic drive disclosed by Uwe, it would substitute
for the dashed box around motor 27 and valves 33. In other words,
Bruehman only teaches a subset of the claimed invention, and even if the
subset were placed in the hydrostatic drive of Uwe, it would still not be a
teaching of a control unit to receive information reflecting air pressure and
using the information to control the rate at which a supply device supplies an
Appeal 2009-006419
Application 10/663,397

6
agency to a brake power source motor.
We have further considered the teachings of Eslinger and Koelzer but
we find therein no disclosure that would remedy the elements missing from
the combined teachings of Uwe and Bruehmann. Accordingly, the
Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 69-74,
76-86, and 91 under § 103 of the statute. Therefore, the rejections of these
claims are reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh

ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC
986 BEDFORD STREET
STAMFORD CT 06905-5619