Ex Parte Maier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13391406 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
13/391,406 05/10/2012 Gerald Maier 022862-1377-US00 1021
34044 7590 02/27/2017
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
CARRASQUILLO, JORGE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD MAIER,
NORBERT WEGNER, JUERGEN RAPP,
and MICHAEL MAY
Appeal 2015-007163
Application 13/391,406
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McManus, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—15 of Application 13/391,406
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 2—16 (July 28, 2014).
Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 Robert Bosch GmbH is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007163
Application 13/391,406
BACKGROUND
The ’406 Application describes a windshield wiper device and a
method for operating such device in which the maximum torque to be output
is limited to a certain value. Spec. 3. Such value is determined by the
intersection of a rod force profile with a limit curve. Id. at 8.
Claims 1 and 8 are representative of the application’s claims and are
reproduced below, with certain limitations relevant to the following
discussion in bold, from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A windshield wiper device (100) with a driving means
(110) and a control unit (130) for the driving means (110),
characterized in that an operating map (140) is provided, in
which a maximum torque to be output by the driving means
(110) and a minimum rotational speed of the driving means
(110) are stored; wherein the maximum torque is determined
by an intersection of a rod force profile with a limit curve of
the operating map (140).
8. A method for operating a windshield wiper device (100),
with a driving means (110) and a control unit (130) for the
driving means (110), characterized by the following method
steps:
a. determining a maximum torque to be output by the
driving means (110);
b. determining a desired rotational speed of the driving
means (110);
c. regulating a pulse-duty factor of a pulse-width-modulated
voltage signal for activating the driving means (110) in such a
manner that the desired rotational speed of the driving means
(110) is set and an actual torque output by the driving means
(110) does not exceed the maximum torque;
d. wherein the maximum torque is determined by an
intersection of a rod force profile with a limit curve of an
operating map (140).
Appeal Br. 9-11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
2
Appeal 2015-007163
Application 13/391,406
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ditzer (DE 4330112 Al; pub. March 9, 1995) (hereinafter “Ditzer”) in
view of Bojrup et al. (US 2008/0272725 Al; pub. Nov. 6, 2008) (hereinafter
“Bojrup”), and further in view of Stemler et al. (US 2010/0192907 Al; pub.
Aug. 5, 2010) (hereinafter “Stemler”). Final Act. 2—5.
2. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ditzer in view of Bojrup, and further in view of Bilcke et
al. (US 2003/0128004 Al; pub. July 10, 2003) (hereinafter “Bilcke”). Id. at
5-7.
3. Claims 5—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ditzer in view of Bojrup, and further in view of Juzswik
et al. (US 4,663,575; iss. May 5, 1987) (hereinafter “Juzswik”). Id. at 7—9.
4. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ditzer in view of Juzswik, and further in view of Stemler.
Id. at 9-13.
5. Claims 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ditzer in view of Juzswik, and further in view of
Bilcke. Id. at 13—14.
6. Claims 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ditzer in view of Juzswik, and further in view of
Bojrup. Id. at 13—14.
DISCUSSION
Appellants allege a single basis of error in the Examiner’s rejections:
that none of the cited references teach that “the maximum torque is
3
Appeal 2015-007163
Application 13/391,406
determined by an intersection of a rod force profile with a limit curve of the
operating map” as required by independent claims 1 and 8, the independent
claims before us in this appeal. Id. at 5—6. Because Appellants allege a
single basis of error that is applicable to all claims at issue, the claims will
stand or fall together.
The Examiner relies on Stemler as teaching “an intersection of a rod
force profile with a limit curve of the operating map.” In order to evaluate
such finding, we construe the terms “rod force profile” and “limit curve.”
During examination, claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In regard to rod force profiles, the Specification provides as follows:
In figure 3, the angle a of the drive shaft 115 is plotted on the
horizontal axis, and the rod force F of the articulated rod 125 of
the transmission 120 is plotted on the vertical axis. A first rod
force profile 210 shows the force F exerted by the articulated rod
125 of the transmission 120 for the situation in which the driving
means 110 outputs a constant first torque, for example 40 Nm.
Spec. 126. Thus, the “rod force profile” is a representation of the force
exerted by the articulated rod 125 (transmission rod) for a particular
rotational angle of the driving means or of the drive shaft at a given constant
torque output by the driving means. See Spec., Fig. 3.
The term “limit curve” is not clearly defined in the Specification. The
Specification does, however, teach that the data for a first operating map 140
is derived from “the desired operating situations at the window.” Id. 127.
Such desirable operating conditions may include “the operating moments on
wiper bearings . . . required in order to operate the wiper arm 160 and the
wiper blade 170 at the desired speeds and accelerations at every position and
4
Appeal 2015-007163
Application 13/391,406
every angle of the wiping movement of the wiper arm.” Id. The operating
map depicts the limit curves 310 and 320. Accordingly, the limit curve
indicates a limit on the energy consumption or stress the designer wishes to
place on the wiper system.
We reproduce Figure 3 of the ’406 Application below:
f
V .. .-v 3
JL
m
FIG. 3
Spec., Fig. 3. Figure 3 shows rod force profiles (210—280) and limit curves
(310 and 320) as a function of the angular position of the wiper.
In view of the foregoing, the term “limit curve” may be construed to
mean a representation of a maximum force that one wishes the wiper system
to bear at a particular rotational angle of the driving means or of the drive
shaft.
The Examiner relies upon Stemler as teaching “an intersection of a
rod force profile with a limit curve of the operating map.” Final Act. 4—5.
The Examiner finds that Stemler includes a figure that depicts a “lug curve”
406 that represents the maximum attainable engine torque over the range of
engine operating speed. Id. at 5 (citing Fig. 4).
5
Appeal 2015-007163
Application 13/391,406
41$.
\
, ^0
77
'Tn
FIG. 4
Stemler, Fig. 4. The Examiner then finds that “the linear range of speed and
load (420) will intersect the lug curve 406 and a point of maximum torque
(421), which may optionally be selected to represent a maximum or rated
torque of the engine.” Id. at 5. While there are similarities between the lug
curve of Stemler and the rod force profiles of the claims at issue as well as
between the “optionally [] selected . . . rated torque” of Stemler and the limit
curve of the present claims, such similarities are insufficient to teach every
aspect of the limitation at issue. At a minimum, Stemler fails to teach or
suggest torque regulation relative to the rotational angle of the driving means
or of the drive shaft.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s finding
that Stemler teaches a device where “the maximum torque is determined by
an intersection of a rod force profile with a limit curve of the operating
map.”
6
Appeal 2015-007163
Application 13/391,406
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1—
15 as obvious.
REVERSED
7