Ex Parte Kuttenberger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2013

10558078 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2013)

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.
10/558,078 08/22/2006 Alfred Kuttenberger 10191/3992 9998
26646 7590 06/14/2013
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2013 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 ALFRED KUTTENBERGER, MARC THEISEN, and
MICHAEL BUNSE
____________________

Appeal 2011-003495
Application 10/558,078
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003495
Application 10/558,078

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alfred Kuttenberger et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15-34. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
15. A device for being situated in a vehicle and for determining
a relative speed between the vehicle and a crash object,
comprising:
at least one active pre-crash surround field sensor system;
at least one contact sensor system;
an arrangement for ascertaining the relative speed based
on a first signal of the at least one surround field sensor system
and based on a second signal from the at least one contact
sensor system, wherein the signal of the contact sensor system
is used to correct the relative speed of the pre-crash surround
field sensor system.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Chaum
Bickley
Fendt
Cho
Eckersten
US 5,126,978
US 5,780,985
US 6,271,747 B1
US 6,408,237 B1
US 6,434,506 B1
Jun. 30, 1992
Jul. 14, 1998
Aug. 7, 2001
Jun. 18, 2002
Aug. 13, 2002
Gysling
Eisele
Oswald
US 2002/0152802 A1
US 2003/0051530 A1
US 2004/0030476 A1
Oct. 24, 2002
Mar. 20, 2003
Feb. 12, 2004
Appeal 2011-003495
Application 10/558,078

3
Gulden ‘626 US 2004/0100626 A1 May 27, 20041
Gulden ‘422 DE 100 39 422 A 1 Feb. 28, 2002
Rejections
Appellants request our review of the following rejections by the
Examiner:
I. Claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Eisele.
II. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eisele
and Chaum.
III. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eisele
and Gulden ‘422.
IV. Claims 21, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eisele and Eckersten.
V. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eisele
and Bickley.
VI. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eisele
and Gysling.
VII. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eisele
and Fendt.
VIII. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eisele
and Cho.
IX. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Eisele, Eckersten, and Cho.
X. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Eisele, Bickley, and Fendt.

1 The Examiner states that Gulden ‘626 is the English language equivalent of
Gulden ‘422 (Ans. 4), and Appellants do not contest that statement.
Appeal 2011-003495
Application 10/558,078

4
XI. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eisele
and Oswald.
OPINION
An issue raised in this appeal is whether Eisele discloses a relative
speed determining device comprising an arrangement for ascertaining the
relative speed between the vehicle and a crash object based on a first signal
of a pre-crash surround field sensor system and based on a second signal
from a contact sensor system, “wherein the signal of the contact sensor
system is used to correct the relative speed of the pre-crash surround field
sensor system,” as called for in independent claim 15. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Eisele “does not identically disclose (nor suggest) the
feature of a contact sensor being used to correct the relative speed of the pre-
crash surround field sensor system.” App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that Eisele’s precrash radar sensor (transceiver
station 1 and antenna 3) and acceleration sensor (impact sensor 9 and/or 6)
correspond to the “at least one . . . pre-crash surround field sensor system”
and “at least one contact sensor system,” respectively, of claim 15. See Ans.
4, 8-9. The Examiner further finds that Eisele discloses the signal of the
contact sensor system being used to correct the relative speed of the pre-
crash surround field sensor system in paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0025], and
[0029]. Ans. 4, 9-10.
Paragraph [0012] of Eisele discloses that impact velocity supplied by
one or more radar sensors or other “all-around viewing” sensors and the time
of impact are taken into account, in addition to acceleration signals, “in
calculating airbag deployment.”
Appeal 2011-003495
Application 10/558,078

5
Paragraph [0013] of Eisele points out that knowing the time of impact
permits the algorithm for calculating deployment to begin analyzing
acceleration signals at the moment of impact, rather than waiting until the
signals exceed a certain noise threshold.
Paragraph [0025] of Eisele discloses that impact velocity and time of
impact are determined with the precrash sensor2, and that, after the impact,
features of the acceleration signal from impact sensors 9 and 6 are calculated
by processor 4, using the acceleration signal itself, the velocity signal via the
first integral of the acceleration signal, and the predisplacement signal via
the second integral of the acceleration signal.
Paragraph [0029] of Eisele discloses:
Since the impact velocity may be measured by the
precrash sensor, features which may change with the impact
velocity may be extracted from the data in the two following
method steps (26, 27). These features are based on the
acceleration signal, the first integral of the acceleration signal,
i.e., the velocity signal, or based on the second integral, i.e., the
predisplacement signal. The features may either be directly
values of these signals, i.e., the predisplacement at a certain
point in time, for example, or they may be values or properties
derived from the signals, e.g., the number of signal peaks in a
certain period of time, or that the signal remains below a
threshold for a certain period of time.
In other words, the portions of Eisele relied upon by the Examiner
establish that an impact velocity and time of impact are determined based on
a signal from the precrash sensor and that a velocity is determined, after the
impact, based on the first integral of signals from the impact sensors 9 and 6,
which are acceleration sensors. Further, Eisele’s device uses both the

2 Eisele discloses in paragraphs [0018] and [0019] that the precrash sensor
may be a radar sensor, a video sensor, or an ultrasonic sensor.
Appeal 2011-003495
Application 10/558,078

6
velocity ascertained based on the signal from the precrash sensor system and
the velocity ascertained based on the signal from the acceleration sensor
system in calculating deployment time. However, the portions of Eisele
alluded to by the Examiner do not explicitly disclose using the signal from
the impact sensor (acceleration sensor) to correct the velocity determined by
the precrash sensor, and the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of
the evidence that Eisele necessarily does so.
The Examiner asserts that Eisele’s disclosure in paragraph [0029] that
the impact velocity may be measured by the precrash sensor and that
features that change with impact velocity are based on the first integral of
the acceleration signal, which is the velocity signal, “implies that the
velocity is updated or corrected by the impact sensor after contact.” Ans. 9-
10. However, it is not apparent, and the Examiner does not adequately,
explain, why this is the case.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Eisele discloses a relative speed
determining device comprising an arrangement for ascertaining the relative
speed between the vehicle and a crash object based on a first signal of a pre-
crash surround field sensor system and based on a second signal from a
contact sensor system, “wherein the signal of the contact sensor system is
used to correct the relative speed of the pre-crash surround field sensor
system,” as called for in independent claim 15. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 and its dependent claims 16, 18, 19, 24, 26,
and 27 as anticipated by Eisele.
Appeal 2011-003495
Application 10/558,078

7
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the remaining
dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), which suffer from the same
deficiency as the rejection of claim 15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15-34 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh