Ex Parte Kurosaki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201311494771 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/494,771 07/28/2006 Takashi Kurosaki 060574 9473 23850 7590 02/27/2013 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP 1420 K Street, N.W. 4th Floor WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TAKASHI KUROSAKI, TOMOAKI SEKIYA, SUSUMU TAKAHASHI, TAKESHI KOJIMA and SHIGEHIRO HONDA ____________ Appeal 2011-003749 Application 11/494,771 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before KEN B. BARRETT, LYNNE H. BROWNE and PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Takashi Kurosaki et al., (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Friederichs (US 5,944,394, iss. Aug. 31, 1999), Inoue (US 5,267,783, iss. Dec. 7, 1993), Yasuno (US 5,229,944, iss. Jul. 20, 1993) and Official Notice; and, claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Friederichs, Inoue, Yasuno, Official Notice and Wiss (US 5,816,666, iss. Oct. 6, 1998). Appeal 2011-003749 Application 11/494,771 2 Claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Appellants’ representative presented oral argument on February 12, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We Affirm. THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A brake pressure controller for a vehicle comprising: an allowable differential pressure setting device for setting an allowable differential pressure between a left wheel and a right wheel on an identical axle based on parameters indicating a motion state of a vehicle; a target control pressure setting device for performing a moment-to-moment setting of a value obtained by summing up the allowable differential pressure set by the allowable differential pressure setting device and a lower-friction-side brake pressure to be applied to a lower-friction-side wheel of the left and right wheels, as a target control pressure of a higher-friction-side brake pressure to be applied to only a higher-friction-side wheel; and a higher-friction-side brake pressure control device for adjusting the higher-friction-side brake pressure to the target control pressure, wherein the parameters are a speed of a vehicle body, a lateral acceleration rate measured by a sensor for detecting an acceleration rate in the left and right direction of the vehicle body, and a lower- friction-side brake pressure of the brake pressures to be applied to the left and right wheels, and the allowable differential pressure setting device comprises: Appeal 2011-003749 Application 11/494,771 3 a candidate calculation device for calculating a first candidate of the allowable differential pressure based on the vehicle body speed, calculating a second candidate of the allowable differential pressure based on the lateral acceleration rate, and calculating a third candidate if the allowable differential pressure based on the lower-friction-side brake pressure, at least the third candidate from among the candidates being calculated using a map prepared in advance; and an allowable differential pressure selection device for selecting and setting the highest one among the first, second, and third candidates calculated by the candidate calculation device, as the allowable differential pressure. App. Br. 14-15 (emphasis added). OPINION Claims 1 and 5: Appellants argue claims 1 and 5 together. App. Br. 11-12. We select claim 1 as the representative claim and claim 5 stands or falls with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner finds that Friederichs discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except for expressly calculating additional candidates of the allowable differential pressure based on additional parameters of a speed of a vehicle body and a lateral acceleration rate of the vehicle body, at least the candidate based on the lower-friction-side brake pressure being calculated using a map prepared in advance, and selecting the highest one among the three candidates as the allowable differential pressure. Appeal 2011-003749 Application 11/494,771 4 Ans. 5 (emphasis added). The Examiner further reasons that these deficiencies are remedied by the teachings of Inoue and Yasuno and the finding (based on Official Notice) that the equivalence of determining the lateral acceleration rate by using a sensor or by using a calculation was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that “in Yasuno, the actual lateral acceleration rate is not of concern . . . it is only the theoretical ‘lateral acceleration rate’ which is calculated . . . .” stating “[i]f the vehicle would lose traction between the tires of the vehicle and the road the actual lateral acceleration rate would be different than the calculated theoretical lateral acceleration rate taught by Yasuno.” Appellants then conclude “[t]herefore, it is respectfully submitted that the present second candidate of the allowable differential pressure based on the lateral acceleration rate is distinct from that erroneously alleged to be obvious by the teachings of Yasuno.” App. Br. 11-12. Appellants’ argument is unconvincing because it is not responsive to the rejection articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner found that the limitations directed to the lateral acceleration rate and calculation of the second candidate are met by the teachings of Yasuno considered in view of the taking of Official Notice “that it is well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a lateral acceleration rate can be measured by a sensor for detecting an acceleration rate in the left and right direction of a vehicle body.” Ans. 6. The question before us is not whether it would be obvious to modify Yasuno to use a sensor to measure the lateral acceleration rate. Rather, the question raised is whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary Appeal 2011-003749 Application 11/494,771 5 skill in the art to modify Friederichs in view of the teachings of Inoue, Yasuno and facts set forth in the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice. Appellants’ arguments fail to apprise us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5. Claims 7 and 9: Appellants argue “[t]he Wiss reference does not cure the defects of the Friederichs et al., Inoue et al. and Yasuno combination, as discussed above.” App. Br. 12. As discussed supra, we discern no error in the Examiner’s rejection based on the combined teachings of Friederichs, Inoue, Yasuno and Official Notice. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 9. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any2 subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation