Ex parte RUMP

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2001

08423512 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SIEGFRIED RUMP
____________
Appeal No. 1998-0675
Application No. 08/423,512
____________
HEARD: August 16, 2001
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, DIXON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-17. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue in this appeal adapts the
triggering of an automatic braking operation of a motor
vehicle. The automatic braking operation produces a brake
pressure higher than that corresponding to the position of a
Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 2
Application No. 08/423,512
brake pedal. More specifically, the invention adapts the
triggering to the driving situation existing during each
braking maneuver by taking into account three factors. The
first factor is the speed of return of an accelerator pedal.
In emergencies, an accelerator pedal is suddenly returned to
rest as the driver reduces the driving power of his vehicle.
At high return speeds of the accelerator pedal, accordingly,
the value for the speed of actuation of the brake pedal is
lowered.
The second factor is the time between the reaching of the
idling position of the accelerator pedal and the actuation of
the brake. A long period therebetween implies that the
vehicle is running down to a standstill under control.
Accordingly, the triggering threshold for the automatic
braking operation is raised. The third factor is the time
between the driver’s placing his foot on the brake pedal and
his application of the brakes. A long period therebetween
implies that the driver is ready to brake but purposefully
delays application of the brake. Accordingly, the triggering
threshold is raised. Accounting for the three factors permits
Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 3
Application No. 08/423,512
At oral hearing, the appellant’s attorney questioned1
whether the claims are indefinite; he said that step (b)
should be written as the last step of claim 1. Because there
is no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, for indefiniteness
before us, we will not address the question. If the appellant
wishes to amend the claims, he may file a continuation
application.
the invention to differentiate between emergency braking, in
which the automatic braking operation is to be triggered, and
routine, “target” braking, in which the triggering of the
automatic braking operation is not to be triggered.
Claim 1, which is representative for our purposes,
follows:
1. A method of determining triggering
sensitivity of an automatic braking operation in a
motor vehicle in dependence on a driving situation,
comprising the steps of
(a) taking as a criterion for triggering
of the automatic braking operation when a braking
manoeuvre [sic] is carried out in excess of a
threshold value of a speed of brake pedal actuation;
(b) automatically building up a brake
pressure higher than that resulting from a position
of the brake pedal after the triggering of the
automatic braking operation;1
(c) presetting a fixed threshold value for
brake pedal actuation speed;
Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 4
Application No. 08/423,512
(d) ascertaining at least one factor
dependent on the driving situation in time-based
dependence on at least one of the brake pedal
actuation during a braking manoeuvre [sic] and on
pedal actuations preceding the braking
manoeuvre[SIC]; and
(e) determining a new threshold value as a
product of the ascertained at least one factor
dependent on the driving situation and the fixed
threshold value to differentiate between emergency
braking requiring the automatic braking operation
and target braking which does not require the
automatic braking operation.
The prior art applied in rejecting the claims follows:
Reichelt et al. (Reichelt) 5,158,343 Oct. 27,
1992
Rump et al. (Rump) 5,445,444 Aug. 29,
1995
(filed Apr. 8,
1994).
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Reichelt. Claims 3-6, 9, and 11-17
stand rejected under § 103(a) as being obvious over Reichelt
in view of Rump. Rather than reiterate the arguments of the
appellant or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the
brief and answer for the respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 5
Application No. 08/423,512
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-17.
Accordingly, we reverse. We begin by noting the following
principles from
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and the appellant‘s argument.
The examiner asserts, "Reichelt et al. Teach [sic]
obtaining a signal which is based upon gas pedal return speed
which meets the claimed limitation of ascertaining at least
one factor dependent on a driving situation based upon pedal
Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 6
Application No. 08/423,512
actuations preceding the braking manoeuvre [sic]; and
determining, based upon a given driving situation and a fixed
threshold value, a second threshold value which may be used in
order to terminate the automatic braking operation."
(Examiner's Answer at 4-5.) The appellant argues, "a new
threshold value is never determined in Reichelt et al. and
certainly not as a ‘product of the ascertained at least one
factor dependent on the driving situation and the fixed
threshold value’, which new threshold value is used for the
triggering criterion during a braking manoeuver [sic]."
(Appeal Br. at 15.)
Claims 1-9 and 11-17 specify in pertinent part the
following limitations: “ascertaining at least one factor
dependent on the driving situation in time-based dependence on
at least one of the brake pedal actuation during a braking
manoeuvre and on pedal actuations preceding the braking
manoeuvre; and ... determining a new threshold value as a
product of the ascertained at least one factor dependent on
the driving situation and the fixed threshold value ....”
Accordingly, the limitations require determining, during
Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 7
Application No. 08/423,512
operation, a new threshold value of a speed of brake pedal
actuation as a product of a factor dependent on the driving
situation and a fixed threshold value.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the prior art of record. Reichelt uses a
threshold value of a speed of brake pedal actuation.
Specifically, “it is checked in a first step 1 whether the
actuating speed of the brake pedal v has exceeded aBP
predetermined first threshold value v . Col. 2, ll. 62-BPthreshold1
65. Although v is used, it is not determined duringBPthreshold1
operation, let alone determined as a product of inter alia a
factor dependent on a driving situation. To the contrary, the
first threshold value is “predetermined.” Id. at l. 64.
Specifically, v is predetermined based on an “order ofBPthreshold1
magnitude of ... the maximum possible brake pedal angle.” Id.
at ll. 65-68. The predetermined first threshold value is “the
only criterion for initiating an automatic braking operation
....” Col. 5, ll. 7-8.
Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 8
Application No. 08/423,512
Relying on Rump to “disclose[] that a threshold which
relates to a speed of brake pedal actuation is indeed used[,]”
(Examiner's Answer at 6), the examiner fails to allege, let
alone show, that the secondary reference cures the deficiency
of Reichelt. Because the latter reference predetermines
v based on an order of magnitude of the maximum possibleBPthreshold1
brake pedal angle, we are not persuaded that the reference
discloses or would have suggested the limitations of
“ascertaining at least one factor dependent on the driving
situation in time-based dependence on at least one of the
brake pedal actuation during a braking manoeuvre and on pedal
actuations preceding the braking manoeuvre; and ...
determining a new threshold value as a product of the
ascertained at least one factor dependent on the driving
situation and the fixed threshold value ....” Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 as being
obvious over Reichelt and of claims 3-6, 9, and 11-17 as being
obvious over Reichelt in view of Rump.
Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 9
Application No. 08/423,512
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-17 under
103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LLB/dal
Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 10
Application No. 08/423,512
EVENSON, MCKEOWN, EDWARDS & LENAHAN
SUITE 700
1200 G STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005