Ex Parte Potts

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 18, 2010

10948639 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DEAN R. POTTS
____________________

Appeal 2009-007184
Application 10/948,639
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and KEN B. BARRETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007184
Application 10/948,639

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Dean R. Potts (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention pertains to an oversteering feedback
response system for vehicles with compound steering systems. Spec. 1,
para. [01]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A vehicle comprising:
a chassis;
a forward rotatable member attached to partially
support the chassis and being rotatable about a first
axis;
an aft rotatable member attached to partially support
the chassis and being rotatable about a second axis;
a compound steering system including a first steering
actuator operable to reorient the first axis with respect
to the chassis between first mechanical limits, and a
second steering actuator operable to reorient the second
axis with respect to the chassis between second
mechanical limits; and
an oversteer feedback system operable to provide an
indication to an operator of an oversteer condition
characterized by one, but not both, of the first and
second axes is at one of the first mechanical limits and
second mechanical limits, respectively.
Appeal 2009-007184
Application 10/948,639

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 11-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Badenoch (US 6,411,876 B1 issued Jun. 25,
2002);
2. Claims 4-6, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Badenoch and Andonian (US 6,557,662 B1 issued
May 6, 2003); and
3. Claims 7-9, 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Badenoch, Andonian, and Kofel
(US 3,966,345 issued Jun. 29, 1976).

OPINION
Independent claim 1 recites “an oversteer feedback system operable to
provide an indication to an operator of an oversteer condition characterized
by one, but not both, of the first and second axes is at one of the first
mechanical limits and second mechanical limits, respectively.” The phrase
“mechanical limits” refers to the mechanical stops that define the angular
steering limits for a vehicle’s wheels, compactor drum, or other rotatable
member. Spec. 5, para. [18]; see also, e.g., claim 1 (the “compound steering
system” limitation); Spec. 1, para. [02]. As the above-quoted claim
language indicates, “an oversteer condition,” within the meaning of
Appellant’s claimed invention, is a condition where one (but not both2) of
the axes for a rotatable member is at its mechanical limit. See also Spec. 3,

2 Appellant refers to the condition where both axes are at their mechanical
limits as “a maximum steering condition.” Spec. 9.
Appeal 2009-007184
Application 10/948,639

4
para. [05] (“When one of the two steering subsystems in a compound
steering system reaches its mechanical limit, the phenomenon is commonly
referred to as an oversteer condition.”).
Based on the Examiner’s application of Badenoch to the claims, the
Examiner appears to have construed an “oversteer condition” as the “point at
which turning the wheel any more cannot be beneficial” or when the wheel
“is at its maximum steering angle.” Ans. 7 (citing Badenoch, col. 3, ll. 50-
51, 61-65). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Examiner has
applied an incorrect construction for the term “oversteer condition.”
The portion of Badenoch cited by the Examiner for the disclosure of
an oversteer condition is directed to the physics pertaining to the angle of
attack of a tire during cornering. See Badenoch, col. 3, l. 49 - col. 4, l. 11.
Badenoch’s system provides feedback to the driver in the form of a tactile
response artificially generated in the steering effort to help the driver
identify the optimum tire slip angle for peak cornering performance and
when additional tire attack will be detrimental to safe handling. Id. at col. 3,
ll. 49-55; col. 4, ll. 7-9. Badenoch’s “maximum bound of steering angle” is
described as the point when “turning the wheel any more cannot be
beneficial” and is a function of, inter alia, the tire slip angle, vehicle speed,
and lateral acceleration. Id. at col. 3, l. 55 – col. 4, l. 2. In other words,
Badenoch’s “maximum bound of steering angle” refers to the point where
any further increase in the angle of attack of a tire will not further benefit the
vehicle’s cornering ability. However there is no indication that, at this point,
the angle of attack is prevented from further increasing, and therefore the
tire’s axis is not necessarily at a mechanical limit within the meaning of
Appellant’s claimed invention. As such, Badenoch’s vehicle is not in an
Appeal 2009-007184
Application 10/948,639

5
“oversteer condition” when the vehicle reaches the maximum bound of
steering angle.
The Examiner has not directed our attention to any disclosure in
Badenoch of providing feedback when one axis is at a mechanical limit.
Therefore, we cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that Badenoch
discloses the recited oversteer feedback system of claim 1. We are
constrained to reverse the rejection of claim 1, and of its dependent claims 2
and 3, as anticipated by Badenoch.
Independent method claim 11 recites the step of providing feedback
indicative of whether a vehicle is in an oversteer condition, and apparatus
claim 17 recites an electronic control module including an oversteer
algorithm. For the same reasons given for claim 1, we cannot sustain the
rejections of claims 11 and 17, or of dependent claims 12-14 and 18, as
anticipated by Badenoch.
The remaining claims on appeal, which depend from one of the
independent claims addressed above, stand rejected as obvious over
Badenoch in combination with Andonian or with Andonian and Kofel. The
Examiner does not rely on Andonian or Kofel in any manner that cures the
deficiency of the underlying anticipation rejection based on Badenoch. As
such, we also reverse the rejection of claims 4-6, 15, and 19 as obvious over
Badenoch and Andonian and the rejection of claims 7-9, 10, 16, and 20 as
obvious over Badenoch, Andonian, and Kofel.

Appeal 2009-007184
Application 10/948,639

6
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh

CATERPILLAR c/o LIELL, MCNEIL & HARPER
Intellectual Property Department
AH9510
100 N.E. Adams
Peoria, IL 61629-9510