11074019 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2013)

Ex Parte Masamura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 6, 2013

11074019 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 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. 11/074,019 03/08/2005 Tatsuya Masamura GOT 209 4556 7590 06/06/2013 RABIN & BERDO, P.C. Suite 500 1101 14th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 EXAMINER LI, CE LI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/06/2013 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 TATSUYA MASAMURA and SHINICHI HAGIDAIRA ____________ Appeal 2011-004558 Application 11/074,019 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004558 Application 11/074,019 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 3, 7-10, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 13, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced below: 13. A stabilizer apparatus for controlling roll of a vehicle, comprising: a torsion bar to connect a right and a left wheel of the vehicle; an actuator to provide a torsion force to the torsion bar by a hydraulic pressure; a hydraulic control device to control the hydraulic pressure supplied to the actuator; at least two lateral acceleration detectors disposed at different positions of a vehicle body to detect lateral acceleration acting on the vehicle body; a calculator to separate and to calculate actual lateral acceleration acting on the vehicle body by a centrifugal force, and roll angular acceleration acting on the vehicle body around a roll center based upon a distance from the roll center of the vehicle body to each of the detectors, to calculate an intersection angle of each line connecting each of the detectors and the roll center, and outputs of the detectors, and to calculate roll angular velocity based on the roll angular acceleration; and a drive control device to control the hydraulic control device to restrain an amount of roll of the vehicle body based on the actual lateral acceleration and the roll angular velocity, and to damp a roll angular velocity of the roll of the vehicle body based on the roll angular velocity calculated by the calculator. Appeal 2011-004558 Application 11/074,019 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relied upon the following prior art references: REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 7-10, 13, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones, Shimada, and Takenaka; and 2. Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones, Shimada, Takenaka, and Nakamura. ANALYSIS Appellants do not argue the claims singly or specifically. Instead they argue the claims as a single group, referring only to specific limitations recited in independent claim 13. App. Br. 5. Accordingly, we select claim 13 as the representative claim for the first ground of rejection 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claim 3, is subject to the second ground of rejection, and depends from independent claim 13. Though not explicit, we presume Appellants argue for the patentability of claim 3 based upon its dependence from claim 13. Therefore, our analysis of claim 13 is determinative of all the claims on appeal. The Examiner determined, in relevant part to Appellants’ arguments as stated below, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Jones with Shimada’s disclosure of detecting and calculating lateral acceleration and roll angular Takenaka US 5,239,868 Aug. 31, 1993 Shimada US 5,247,466 Sep. 21, 1993 Nakamura US 5,408,411 Apr. 18, 1995 Jones US 6,175,792 B1 Jan. 16, 2001 Appeal 2011-004558 Application 11/074,019 4 velocity and restraining an amount of roll of the vehicle body based on the lateral acceleration and the roll angular velocity. Ans. 6. The Examiner also concluded that it would have been obvious to further modify Jones and Shimada by damping roll angular velocity, as disclosed by Takenaka. Id. Thus, the Examiner is relying on Shimada for calculating the roll angular velocity based on the roll angular acceleration, and is relying on Takenaka for damping the roll angular velocity, as calculated by Shimada, to control the roll of the vehicle body. Most of Appellants’ arguments focus on the alleged failure of Takenaka to calculate angular velocity based on angular acceleration. Appellants argue that: (1) Takenaka does not disclose or suggest that angular velocity is damped based on a “calculated value,” disclosing only control of roll (App. Br. 6); (2) merely reducing roll does not mean that Takenaka’s controller “calculates ‘roll angular velocity based on the roll angular acceleration’” in accordance with the “calculator paragraph” of claim 13 (Reply Br. 2); and (3) since Takenaka uses angular rate sensors, there is no need to calculate the angular velocity or rate (id.). However, these arguments do not apprise us of any error in the rejection since the Examiner did not cite Takenaka for the disclosure of a “calculated value” or for calculating roll angular velocity based on roll angular acceleration. The Examiner relied on Shimada for this disclosure. Ans. 5 (Shimada discloses “to calculate roll angular velocity based on the roll angular acceleration.”). The Examiner is relying on Takenaka for Appeal 2011-004558 Application 11/074,019 5 damping the roll angular velocity, as calculated by Shimada, to control the roll of the vehicle body. Id. Regarding Shimada, Appellants argue that Shimada does not disclose or suggest a drive control device to damp roll angular velocity, disclosing only control of yaw based on a detected angular rate. App. Br. 6-7. This argument also does not apprise us of error in the rejection since the Examiner did not rely on Shimada for the disclosure of a drive control device to damp roll angular velocity. The Examiner relied on Takenaka for this disclosure. Ans. 5 (“Takenaka teaches controlling the damping setting to perform an anti-roll function based on roll angular velocity.”). Regarding Appellants’ argument that Shimada discloses only control of yaw, not roll (App. Br. 6-7), we do not agree that Shimada’s disclosure is so limited. Shimada states that the disclosed invention is for detecting an angular rate of a moving body, such as an automobile. Shimada, col. 1, ll. 8- 10. Shimada also discloses that a yaw rate is a “kind of angular rate” (id. at col. 1, l. 30), and that control of yaw, as disclosed in the Shimada patent, is “[a]n example” of the type of movement that can be controlled by the disclosed apparatus for detecting an angular rate (id. at col. 2, ll. 24-25 (emphasis added)). In other words, Shimada’s disclosure is not limited solely to detecting yaw; rather, it broadly discloses detecting an angular rate. Roll, yaw, and pitch are each angular rates that can be detected, measured, and controlled in vehicles. See, e.g., Takenaka, col. 6, ll. 18-48. Thus, Shimada’s disclosure of detecting and controlling an angular rate includes detecting and controlling roll.1 1 We note that Appellants have not pointed to any disclosure in Shimada that limits the detection of angular velocity based on angular acceleration Appeal 2011-004558 Application 11/074,019 6 Accordingly, Appellants’ evidence and arguments do not apprise us of any error in the rejection of claim 13 based on the references as applied by the Examiner. DECISION Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’ contentions and the preponderance of relevant evidence, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 7-10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls exclusively to yaw or suggests that Shimada’s disclosure is inapplicable to detecting and controlling roll.