Ex Parte Post et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2010

10983393 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES W. POST II, THEODORE KLAUS, and KEN KANG
____________________

Appeal 2008-006097
Application 10/983,393
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: March 29, 2010
____________________

Before: ALLEN R. MACDONALD, WILLIAM F. PATE III, and
MICHAEL W. O'NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, and 5-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The claims are directed to an automotive braking system that has
individual wheel loads as an input to adjust braking control in response to or
in anticipation of changes in individual wheel load.
Appeal 2008-006097
Application 10/983,393

2

Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of controlling vehicle braking comprising:

calculating a wheel slip of individual vehicle wheels;

determining a load upon individual vehicle wheels;

calculating a first brake line correction factor based on
the determined loads upon the vehicle wheels utilizing different
gain factors based on different vehicle operating conditions, and
based on the first brake line correction factor providing a first
line pressure adjustment command;

calculating a second brake line correction factor based on
the calculated wheel slip, and based on the second brake line
correction factor providing a second line pressure adjustment
command;

integrating the first line pressure adjustment command
and the second line pressure adjustment command; and

using the integrated first and second line pressure
adjustment commands to modulate a pressure supplied to
individual wheel calipers during braking of the vehicle.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shibahata
Fratini
US 4,666,013
US 5,692,587
May 19, 1987
Dec. 2, 1997
Kingston (as translated) DE 10 158 026 Jun. 12, 2003

Appeal 2008-006097
Application 10/983,393

3
REJECTIONS
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Ans. 3.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kingston and Shibahata. Ans. 4.
Claims 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kingston and Fratini. Ans. 5.

ISSUES
With respect to the rejection of claim 6 under § 112, first paragraph,
Appellants argue that the various types of suspension controls are well-
known in the art and do not have to be further explained. See Brief at 11.
Appellants further cite two U.S. patents wherein adjustable dampers are used
in steering and suspension control. These dampers utilize
magnetorheological fluids controlled by electric current to adjust the
damping rate. Accordingly, the first issue is whether the Examiner has
sustained his burden of establishing that undue experimentation would be
necessary to make and use the subject matter of claim 6.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under § 103, the
Appellants argue that Kingston is directed to a method of operating antilock
brakes, while Shibata is directed to a steering control system. Since Kingston
is not directed to controlling the steering of the vehicle, the Appellants argue
that motivation is lacking to combine the references. Therefore, the second
issue is whether the Examiner erred in combining the collective teachings of
Kingston and Shibata in rejecting claims 1 and 2 under § 103 on the grounds
obviousness.
Appeal 2008-006097
Application 10/983,393

4
With respect to the rejection of claims 5, 7, and 8 under § 103, the
Appellants argue that every limitation of the claimed invention is not taught
or suggested by the combination of Kingston and Fratini. Appellants state
that Kingston does not disclose filtering high-frequency load variation.
Appellants further argue that Fratini, while teaching the use of filtering
devices, does not remove high-frequency load variations. Rather Fratini
teaches the use of filters to isolate a desired component from a signal that
includes multiple components. Therefore, according to Appellants, Fratini
does nothing to cure the deficiencies of the Kingston patent. Accordingly,
the third issue for consideration is whether the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claims 5, 7, and 8 on the ground that Fratini does not disclose
filtering of the correct high frequency signals.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. With reference to Figure 1 of the Kingston patent, Kingston discloses
calculating a wheel slip of individual vehicle wheels in ABS
controller 16. See para. [0020]. Kingston further discloses suspension
shock absorbers 24. See para. [0026]. The load upon the individual
vehicle wheel is determined by spring deflection sensors 26. See para.
[0029]. In box 30, a first brake line correcting factor is calculated
based on the determined load upon the vehicle wheels and a first line
pressure adjustment is outputted. Id. A second brake line correction
factor is calculated in ABS module 16 based on the calculated wheel
slip and a second line pressure adjustment is outputted from control
device 10. See para. [0021]. The two first and second line pressure
adjustment commands are integrated in interface 18. See para. [0024].
Appeal 2008-006097
Application 10/983,393

5
The integrated first and second line pressure adjustment commands
are supplied to the wheel pressure modulator 12 to modulate the
pressure supplied to the individual wheel calipers during braking. See
para. [0026].
2. Kingston differs from the claimed subject matter in that Kingston does
not expressly disclose utilizing different gain factors based on
different vehicle operating conditions. Kingston further differs from
the claimed subject matter in that Kingston does not disclose high-
frequency filtering.
3. Shibahata discloses a vehicle control system using different gain
values to provide appropriate system control in response to differing
vehicle conditions. See col. 4, ll. 3-16. The gain is calculated using a
transfer function to model the behavior of the vehicle. See cols. 9-11
passim. We agree with the Examiner that a second order transfer
function is often used to model a damped system such as a vehicle
suspension during control of these damped systems. We further agree
that variable gain is used to control these systems. Appellants admit
that their vehicle control system is using a standard second order
transfer function with proportional gain. Spec. para. [0017].
4. Shibahata differs from the claimed subject matter in that Shibahata
discloses using variable gain and transfer functions for controlling
vehicle steering rather than vehicle braking.
5. Fratini discloses using filtering to eliminate high-frequency signal
noise in the electronic control of vehicle suspensions. See col. 9, ll.
15-21.
Appeal 2008-006097
Application 10/983,393

6
6. Fratini does not expressly disclose removing high-frequency load
variations from determined wheel loads.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for enablement is whether one skilled in the art would have to
resort to undue experimentation in order to practice the invention. In re
Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 503 (CCPA 1976). Undue experimentation analysis
may include consideration of: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary,
(2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or
absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of
the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or
unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. In re Wands,
858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors are illustrative, and what
is relevant to an enablement determination depends upon the facts of the
particular case. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 727 F.2d
1200, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
Appeal 2008-006097
Application 10/983,393

7
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”)

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claim 6 for lack of enablement is reversed. In our
view, Appellants have successfully rebutted the Examiner’s determination of
lack of enablement by the citation of two patents directed to magneto-
rheological control of vehicle suspension elements. These patents serve to
show the state of the art with respect to the subject matter of claim 6, and
they establish that the subject matter of the claim could be made and used by
one of ordinary skill without undue experimentation.
With respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 2, we will affirm
this rejection. In our view, the use of a proportional gain factor and a second
order transfer function in the method and system of Kingston is the
application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement
to yield a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Appellants’ sole
argument with regard to this rejection is that there is no motivation to
combine the references. However, the Supreme Court has rejected a rigid
application of the requirement for motivation to combine references in a
rejection under § 103. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific references relied upon by the
Examiner, the Examiner is of the view that using proportional gain and a
second order transfer function in a control system is well known in the art of
control system design. Ans. 6. Inasmuch as Shibahata discloses the use of
proportional gain and a transfer function in the real-time control of steering
Appeal 2008-006097
Application 10/983,393

8
in a vehicle, we are of the view that the same techniques could be used in the
control of an ABS system. Thus, the Examiner did not err in combining the
teachings of Kingston and Shibata.
Turning to the rejection of claims 5, 7, and 8, Fratini clearly teaches
the use of filtering during suspension control in a vehicle. Appellants argue
that Fratini removes high-frequency noise rather than removing high-
frequency load variation from the signal. We see little difference. Whether
the high-frequency information is characterized as noise or as unwanted load
variation, the high-frequency signal is removed, so that the control function
can operate on the remaining desired signal.
In our view, the use of high-frequency filtering is also the use of a
known technique applied to a known device, such as an ABS system of
Kingston, ready for improvement, to yield a predictable result. Therefore,
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5, 7, and 8.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 6 under § 112. The rejection of claim 6 is reversed.
We also conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1,
2, 5, 7, and 8 under § 103. The rejections of these claims are affirmed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Vsh

Appeal 2008-006097
Application 10/983,393

9
RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP
23755 LORAIN ROAD
SUITE 200
NORTH OLMSTED OH 44070