Ex Parte Roth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2017

13707046 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 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.
13/707,046 12/06/2012 Franz Roth ROTH 1078
20151 7590 11/22/2017
HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC
HENRY M FEIEREISEN
708 THIRD AVENUE
SUITE 1501
NEW YORK, NY 10017
EXAMINER
SHUDY, ANGELINA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2017 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):
INFO @ FEIEREISENLLC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANZ ROTH, JOHANN STOLL, and VERENA HORZ
(Applicant: AUDI AG)
Appeal 2016-000735
Application 13/707,046
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Audi AG (Appellant) appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s November 20, 2014, final decision (“Final Act.”) rejecting
claims 1—20. An oral hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held
on November 7, 2017. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-000735
Application 13/707,046
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a motor vehicle and a method of
operating a motor vehicle. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below from page
2 of the April 15, 2014, Amendment, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:1
1. A method of operating a motor vehicle, comprising:
transmitting, by a control device, a trigger signal to at
least one protection device formed as an outside air bag for
protecting a pedestrian in an event of an impending collision
with the motor vehicle so as to render the outside air bag
operational and cause the outside air bag to assume a functional
position ready for protection; and
activating, by the trigger signal of the control device,
which rendered the outside air bag operational and caused the
air bag to assume the functional position ready for protection, a
brake device which causes braking of the motor vehicle in
response to the trigger signal of the control device which
rendered the outside bag operational and caused the outside bag
to assume the functional position ready for protection.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,9, 11, 12, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Breed (US 2008/0040004 Al, published
Feb. 14, 2008) and Rao (US 2004/0117116 Al, published June 17, 2004).
Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed, Rao, and Keinberger (DE 10 2011 110 977 Al,
published Feb. 21, 2013).
1 We note that “outside air bag” in line 5 above is missing from Appellant’s
reproduction of the claim in the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 10 (Claims
App.).
2
Appeal 2016-000735
Application 13/707,046
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Breed, Rao, and Moriizumi (US 7,974,784 B2,
issued July 5, 2011).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed, Rao, Moriizumi, and Okuda (US 2007/0255477
Al, published Nov. 1, 2007).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed, Rao, Moriizumi, and Kajiwara (US 5,234,071,
issued Aug. 10, 1993).
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Breed, Rao, and Cetinkaya (US 2011/0238267 Al,
published Sept. 29, 2011).
Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breed, Rao, and Lucas (US 2006/0058964 Al, published
Mar. 16, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Based on Breed and Rao
Appellant argues claims 1,9, 11, 12, 18, and 20 together. Appeal Br.
5—7. We select claim 1 as representative, treating claims 9, 11, 12, 18, and
20 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Breed discloses a method of operating a
motor vehicle substantially as recited in independent claim 1, including,
inter alia, deploying an outside air bag and determining whether activation
3
Appeal 2016-000735
Application 13/707,046
of a reactive system, including the brakes, is required. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner further finds that Breed discloses “an anticipatory front crash
sensor system” that “determine[s] whether the potential impact requires
activation of the reactive system, where the reactive system includes the
brakes,” and, thus, Breed teaches “the benefit of a triggering device for
triggering a braking operation.” Id. The Examiner relies on Rao to teach
activating a bumper-bag system by a trigger signal and then activating a
braking countermeasure by the trigger signal, and reasons that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill to
provide [the] invention as disclosed in Breed by incorporating
activating, by the trigger signal of the control device, which
rendered the outside air bag operational and caused the air bag
to assume the functional position ready for protection, a brake
device as taught by Rao in order to optimize the performance of
the occupant safety systems and to provide an adaptive safety
system for bumper-bag equipped vehicles.
Id. at 6. Thus, the Examiner determines, “Rao discloses an operational
connection between the countermeasures in addition [to] receiving signals
from the same control system.” Id. at 4. The Examiner further determines
that Appellant does not “define the trigger signal as disclosed in the claims is
an actuator,” and finds that Rao discloses deploying the outside air bags and
activating vehicle braking based on the same trigger; namely, the size of a
detected object being above a certain threshold. Ans. 5; see also Rao 148.
Appellant states that Rao discloses “that various countermeasures,
such as causing an outside bag [to be] operational, activating a brake device
which causes braking of a motor vehicle, etc. are executed independently”
and acknowledges that “it is . . . possible that both of them [(i.e., the outside
4
Appeal 2016-000735
Application 13/707,046
air bag and the brake device)] are implemented.” Appeal Br. 7. However,
Appellant argues, Rao does not disclose “that the same trigger signal of the
control device which rendered the outside air bag [to be] operational and
caused it to assume its functional position, causes a brake device to brake the
motor vehicle.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 2—3.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “But that the ‘claims are
interpreted in light of the specification does not mean that everything
expressed in the specification must be read into all the claims.’” In re
Gorelik, 652 F. App’x 954, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Raytheon Co. v.
Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Rao discloses determining that a
collision threat with an object exists and then activating first and second
vehicle safety countermeasures. Rao Abstract, || 8, 48 49; see also Final
Act. 4. Rao also discloses that the first countermeasure is a vehicle bumper-
bag (i.e., an external airbag) and the second countermeasure includes vehicle
braking. Rao ^fl[ 3, 48-49. Each of these countermeasures is activated by
controller 12. Id. 141. As also correctly noted by the Examiner, Rao
discloses that each of these countermeasures is activated only if the detected
object size exceeds a threshold value. Id. 148, Fig. 5; see also Ans. 5. The
5
Appeal 2016-000735
Application 13/707,046
detection of object size is performed by remote object sensor 18, which
“generates an object signal in the presence of an object within its field-of-
view,” which signal is transmitted to controller 12. Rao 129 (emphasis
added), Fig. 3; see also id. 147. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Rao
discloses transmitting a trigger signal to deploy the external airbag to a
functional position and to engage the vehicle braking system is supported by
a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant’s arguments are presented in conclusory fashion with no
supporting evidence or persuasive technical reasoning, and thus fail to
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. For example,
Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s interpretation that Rao’s object
signal that is generated upon the determination that a detected object size
exceeds a threshold value corresponds to the recited trigger signal.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1,9, 11, 12, 18, and 20.
Obviousness Based on Breed, Rao, and one or more of Keinberger,
Moriizumi, Okuda, Kajiwara, Cetinkaya, and Lucas
Regarding claims 2—8, 10, 13—17, and 19, Appellant only relies on the
arguments advanced with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br.
7—9. Accordingly, for the same reasons as provided above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—8, 10, 13—17, and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 is affirmed.
6
Appeal 2016-000735
Application 13/707,046
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7