Ex Parte Kuttenberger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2016

12736757 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121736,757 01/26/2011
24972 7590 05/18/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
666 FIFTH A VE
NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alfred Kuttenberger
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10191/6374 8852
EXAMINER
HILGENDORF, DALE W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALFRED KUTTENBERGER and MARC THEISEN
Appeal2014-002675
Application 12/736,757
Technology Center 3600
Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Alfred Kuttenberger and Marc Theisen ("Appellants") appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 11-34. Claims 1-10 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a method and control device for triggering
passenger protection means for a vehicle. Spec. 1 (Title). Claims 11 and 27,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal2014-002675
Application 12/736,757
11. A method for triggering passenger protection device for a
vehicle, the method comprising:
triggering the passenger protection device as a function of
at least one signal of an impact sensor system and at least one
precrash signal, wherein the at least one precrash signal is
evaluated as a function of a classification of at least one
functionality, the functionality being influenced by the at least
one precrash signal.
27. A control device for triggering a passenger protection
device for a vehicle, comprising:
a first interface that provides at least one precrash signal;
a second interface that provides at least one impact signal;
an evaluation circuit that has a triggering algorithm for
generating a triggering signal as a function of the at least one
precrash signal and the at least one impact signal; and
a triggering circuit for triggering the passenger protection
device as a function of a triggering signal;
wherein the evaluation circuit has an evaluation module
for evaluating the at least one precrash signal as a function of a
classification of at least one functionality, the evaluation module
having an influencing module for influencing the functionality as
a function of the at least one precrash signal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kosiak
Fendt
us 5,835,007
US 6,271,747 Bl
REJECTIONS
Nov. 10, 1998
Aug. 7, 2001
Claims 11-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kosiak and Fendt.
2
Appeal2014-002675
Application 12/736,757
Claims 11 and 2 7
OPINION
Independent claim 11 recites, in part, "wherein the at least one
precrash signal is evaluated as a function of a classification of at least one
functionality." Independent claim 27 recites similar language, and
Appellants indicate that claims 11 and 27 are argued together. Appeal Br.
10; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that Kosiak discloses a method for triggering
passenger protection (a vehicle occupant restraint system) using an impact
sensor and a pre-crash signal. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that
"Kosiak does not teach the claimed function of the precrash signal." Final
Act. 2. Nonetheless, the Examiner further finds that Fendt teaches
combining a pre-crash signal S 1 and crash signal S2 when S2 occurs within
a predetermined time duration T MAX of S 1. Final Act. 2. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious "to combine the crash sensor
system of Kosiak with the timing function of Fendt ... in order to adjust the
response sensitivity of the trigger circuit for the protection device to an
appropriate level which depends on how soon the crash signal follows the
precrash signal." Final Act. 2 (citing Fendt, col. 2 11. 64--67) (emphasis
added).
Appellants argue that, even assuming arguendo that the Examiner's
findings are correct, the result of the Examiner's combination of Kosiak and
Fendt would not result in the method recited in claim 11. Appeal Br. 9.
Specifically, Appellants assert, "there is no disclosure or suggestion of the
pre-crash signal being evaluated based on a classification of the influenced
functionality of the safety device deployment, as provided for in the context
3
Appeal2014-002675
Application 12/736,757
of the presently claimed subject matter." Appeal Br. 9. In this regard,
Appellants state, "[i]n other words, there is no disclosure or suggestion of
[Fendt' s] pre-crash signal S 1 being evaluated based on the time of
deployment or the threshold level for the deployment; both of which (as
noted above) are apparently asserted by the Office to be a functionality
influenced by the pre-crash signal S 1." Appeal Br. 9. Appellants state,
"[a]ccording to the presently claimed subject matter, it is the pre-crash signal
that is evaluated as a function of a classification of a functionality that
the pre-crash signal itself influences." Appeal Br. 9. Appellants assert
that in Fendt, in contrast, "it is the crash signal S2 that is used or not (e.g.
evaluated) based on the time duration T MAX (which is itself not a
classification of a functionality influenced by the crash signal in any case)."
Appeal Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner discusses the applicable interpretation of
functionality and quotes page 3, line 11 of Appellants' Specification, 1 stating
"[t]he functionality may also be any possible functionality." See Ans. 5
(quoting Appellants' Spec. 3, 1. 11). The Examiner states, "[t]he change of
threshold, starting of the timer and the protection device deployment is
equivalent to the claimed functionality." Ans. 5.
Regarding the classification of at least one functionality recited in
claim 11, the Examiner again quotes Appellants' Specification, stating "[ t ]he
classification of at least one functionality means which value the
functionality has at a given time." Ans. 5 (quoting Appellants' Spec. 3, 11.
13-15). The Examiner finds that the recited classification of at least one
1 Substitute Specification filed with a preliminary amendment on November
4, 2010.
4
Appeal2014-002675
Application I2/736,757
functionality "is equivalent to the teachings of Fendt ... in that the setting
and changing of the threshold is the functionality, and at a given time the
threshold is lowered from TH to TL. (Fendt ... Figures I A, I Band I C)."
Ans. 5. The Examiner further states, "[i]f a precrash signal SI starts the
timer at t2 (threshold at TH), then at t4 the threshold is lowered to TL, this is
equivalent to a value (TH, TL) of the functionality (threshold level
changing) at a given time (t2, t4)." Ans. 5---6 (emphasis added).
In reply, Appellants reiterate, "there is no disclosure or suggestion [in
Fendt] of pre-crash signal SI being evaluated based on the time of
deployment or the threshold level for the deployment; both of which (as
noted above) are apparently asserted by the Office to be a functionality
influenced by the pre-crash signal SI." Reply Br. 4.
Appellants' argument is persuasive. As to whether Fendt discloses
that the evaluation of pre-crash signal SI is a function of a classification of
at least one functionality as recited in claim I I, Fendt lowers the threshold
for deployment of the protection device based on a determination that crash
signal S2 follows pre-crash signal SI by no more than a time period of T MAX.
See Fendt, col. 2, 1. 55---col. 3, 1. 8; Figs. IA-IC, 3A-3C. Thus, the value of
the threshold (or timing of changing the value) is a function of SI (and S2),
not the other way around. The Examiner does not identify any support in
Fendt for the finding that the pre-crash signal is a function of what the
Examiner finds is the recited classification of at least one functionality.
Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of claim I I is based on a finding of
fact not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim I I as unpatentable over Kosiak and Fendt.
5
Appeal2014-002675
Application 12/736,757
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27
as unpatentable over Kosiak and Fendt.
Claims 12-26 and 28-34
Claims 12-26 and 28-34 each depend, directly or indirectly, from one
of independent claims 11 and 27. Accordingly, for the same reasons
discussed above regarding the rejections of claims 11 and 27, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 12-26 and 28-34.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-34 is reversed.
REVERSED
6