Ex Parte Loos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

14115996 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/115,996 01107/2014
20151 7590 05/05/2016
HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC
HENRY M FEIEREISEN
708 THIRD A VENUE
SUITE 1501
NEW YORK, NY 10017
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sebastian Loos
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.
LOOS-2 4063
EXAMINER
WEBER, TAMARA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEBASTIAN LOOS, DIRK HIRSCHMANN, and
BODO KLEICKMANN
Appeal2016-001499
Application 14/115,996
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 7
and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to an anti-skid control device for a vehicle
having an electromotive drive system. Claim 7, reproduced below, with
emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal2016-001499
Application 14/115,996
7. A device for anti-slip control for a vehicle with electromotive
vehicle drive, comprising:
a respective electric drive motor provided for each one of
respective drive wheels of the vehicle and driving the respective
drive wheel;
a controllable converter provided for each respective
electric drive motor and operatively coupled with the respective
electric drive motor to establish a rotary field in the respective
electric drive motor; and
an anti-slip control device continuously communicating to
each said controllable converter a maximal admissive rotational
speed of the respective drive motor or of the respective drive
wheel, thereby causing the controllable converter to limit a
rotational speed of a rotary field commensurate with the
maximal admissive rotational speed.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lundstrom
Fujimoto
US 2007/0089916 Al
US 2009/0210128 Al
REJECTIONS
Apr. 26, 2007
Aug. 20, 2009
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujimoto and Lundstrom. Final Act. 2.
OPINION
Independent claim 7 requires, paraphrasing the italicized limitation
above, a control device for speed limiting at each wheel. The Examiner does
not make clear exactly what is relied upon to meet this limitation. As best as
we can tell it is the drive motor controllable convertor 170 of Lundstrom
2
Appeal2016-001499
Application 14/115,996
itself. The Examiner also reproduces a very general comment in Lundstrom
that there are "advanced control possibilities."
The controllable convertor of Lundstrom is used to set a desired speed
and is not reasonably regarded as something that limits it as recited in claim
7. According to Appellants' Specification, a controller SG and separate
limiter ASC are provided for these functions, respectively. Spec. paras. 14,
17; Fig. 1. Claim 7 itself recites a separate controllable converter for field
establishment. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one
that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353,
1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Further, when giving claim terms their broadest
reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from the
specification. See e.g., In re NTP, 654 F. 3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The omnibus disclosure of some other undescribed "advanced control
possibilities" is not specific enough to meet this limitation. Although there
are instances when a general disclosure may be considered a disclosure of
each specific configuration falling within it, the disclosure of "advanced
control possibilities" introduces so many possibilities it cannot reasonably be
interpreted to satisfy the claim language in question. When challenged by
Appellants on this point, the Examiner reproduces the same paragraph from
the Final Action without any further explanation. See Ans. 3. For these
reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 7 and 8.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
3