Ex Parte Schumacher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

11666842 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/666,842 10/29/2007
24972 7590 10/03/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hartmut Schumacher
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1019114683 5106
EXAMINER
FUREMAN, JARED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARTMUT SCHUMACHER, BERND ROOS,
RUDIGER KARNER, and ALAIN JOUSSE 1
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
decision2 rejecting claims 7, 8, 11, 15, 20, and 22-26 in the above-identified
application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ROBERT BOSCH
GmbH. Appeal Brief 2, July 25, 2014 [hereinafter Appeal Br.].
2 Office Action, Nov. 26, 2013 [hereinafter Final Action].
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to an integrated circuit for activating a
passenger protection arrangement, see Appeal Br. Claims App. 1, such as
"airbags, belt tensioners, or pedestrian protection means," Spec. 3: 13-14.
Sole independent claim 7 is representative:
7. An integrated circuit in a control unit for activating a
passenger protection arrangement, comprising:
[i-f A J an energy reserve capacitor;
[i-f BJ an ignition output stage;
[i-f CJ a power supply unit providing operating voltages for
the control unit, the power supply unit also including a converter
that is at least one of a step-up converter and a step-down
converter and a voltage regulator, the voltage regulator coupled
to the converter, the energy reserve capacitor, and the ignition
output stage, wherein the voltage regulator is configured to
charge the energy reserve capacitor with an output of the
converter and, when triggered, supply an energy stored in the
energy reserve capacitor as a sole source of energy to the ignition
output stage;
[i-f DJ a watchdog for monitoring a processor;
[i-f EJ at least one first interface for connecting to at least
one sensor situated outside the control unit; and
[i-f FJ a serial peripheral interface (SPI) bus enabling data
communication between the power supply unit, the ignition
output stage, the watchdog, and the at least one first interface;
[i-f GJ wherein the integrated circuit provides at least two
voltage levels, and performs an initial evaluation of at least one
acceleration signal derived from the at least one sensor to enable
at least one ignition output stage of the control unit,
[i-f HJ wherein the watchdog provides a different
evaluation of the at least one acceleration signal independent of
and in parallel to the initial evaluation and a monitoring of (i) a
system of clock of the integrated circuit, (ii) a proper sequence
of software-based functions of the integrated circuit, and (iii) a
2
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
built-in self test of an integrated circuit component, in parallel to
each other, and
[i-f I] wherein the integrated circuit triggers an enablement
of the at least one ignition output stage and the passenger
protection arrangement responsive to a verification from the
watchdog of the different evaluation and the parallel monitoring
when the initial evaluation indicates enablement.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 1 (emphasis and paragraph identifiers A-I added).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 7, 8, 11, 15, 20, and 22-263 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Breed4 in view of Matsuda,5 Kime,6
Otterbach,7 and Schumacher '886. 8 Final Action 3-13.
II. Claims 7, 8, 11, 15, 20, and 22-263 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Matsuda, Kime,
Schumacher '349,9 and Schumacher '886. Final Action 13-23.
Appellants argue rejections I and II together, and argue claims 7, 8,
11, 15, 20, and 22-24 as a group. See Appeal Br. 7-9. Therefore, consistent
with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our
3 The Examiner incorrectly omitted claims 22, 23, 25, and 26 when stating
both rejections I and II, see Final Action 3, 13-14. However, these claims
were addressed in the body of the rejections, see id. at 13, 23, and
Appellants include these claims in the lists of rejected claims, see Appeal Br.
7.
4 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2003/0155753 Al (published Aug.
21, 2003) [hereinafter Breed].
5 U.S. Patent No. 5,717,318 (issued Feb. 10, 1998) [hereinafter Matsuda].
6 U.S. Patent No. US 7,185,449 B2 (issued Mar. 6, 2007) [hereinafter Kime].
7 U.S. Patent No. US 6,803,673 B2 (issued Oct. 12, 2004) [hereinafter
Otterbach].
8 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2004/0153886 Al (published Aug. 5,
2004) [hereinafter Schumacher '886].
9 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2004/0094349 Al (published May
20, 2004) [hereinafter Schumacher '349].
3
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
discussion to claims 7, 25, and 26, and all other claims stand or fall together
with claim 7.
In addition to the Reply Brief filed Jan. 26, 2015 [hereinafter Reply
Br.], Appellants filed another document titled "Supplemental/Replacement
Reply Brief' on Jan. 29, 2015. Because Appellants "may only file a single
reply brief to an examiner's answer," 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(a), and this second
document was filed more than two months from the date of the Answer, see
id., we do not consider the Jan. 29, 2015 filing in our decision.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Breed teaches paragraphs A, B, D, E, and G
of claim 7. See Final Action 3--4. Figure 28 of Breed is reproduced below:
FIG. 28
Figure 28 "is a schematic of the electric circuit of an electromechanical or
electronic side impact airbag system," which contains airbag and inflator
assembly 510, energy storage capacitor 543 and battery 570. Breed i-f 408.
4
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
The Examiner identifies capacitor 543 with the "energy reserve capacitor" of
claim 7, the output of assembly 510 with the "ignition output stage," and
battery 570 with the "power supply unit." Final Action 3.
Regarding claim 7, paragraph C, the Examiner finds that Breed
teaches
a power supply unit (570) providing operating voltages (a
positive voltage and ground/negative voltage), the power supply
unit is coupled to the energy reserve capacitor and the ignition
output stage (via 540), wherein the power supply unit is
configured to charge the energy reserve capacitor and when
triggered, supply an energy stored in the energy reserve capacitor
as a sole source of energy to the ignition output stage,
id. at 3, but
does not explicitly disclose that the power supply unit also
include[ s] a converter that is at least one of a step-up converter
and a step-down converter and a voltage regulator, that the
voltage regulator is coupled to the converter, the energy reserve
capacitor, and the ignition output stage, wherein the voltage
regulator is configured to charge the energy reserve capacitor
with an output of the converter and, when triggered, supply an
energy stored in the energy reserve capacitor as a sole source of
energy to the ignition output stage,
id. at 4. However, the Examiner finds that these limitations of paragraph C
are found in Matsuda. Id. at 5---6.
Figure 1 of Matsuda is reproduced below:
5
Appeal2015-003381
Application I 1/666,842
"'T I ,,_,
rh I . m 3 ~'
vco.
FIG. l
DRIVE
C!NCUl'T
rh
.iJ "t
t= ____ , .....-.------------········.,.· -·-·-·-·-·-·-··""""'"-· ----~----·--·
Figure I is a circuit block diagram of a step-down type DC-DC regulator for
reducing an input voltage VI to a lower output voltage Vout. See Matsuda
3:62--4:9. Referring to Figure I, the Examiner finds that Matsuda teaches a
power supply unit that includes a step-down converter (16, I 8, 20, 22, 24,
26, and 28) and a coupled voltage regulator (32). Id. at 5. The Examiner
finds that "Matsuda's load (14) is capable of being connected to Breed's
energy reserve capacitor [543] and Breed's ignition output stage [output to
I50]." Final Action 5. Thus, the Examiner determines that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have incorporated the
teachings of Matsuda into the control unit taught by Breed,
because Matsuda's teachings would have given one the ability to
reduce and stabilize[] the output of Breed's power supply.
Id. at 6.
Regarding claim 7, paragraph F, the Examiner finds that Breed
teaches at least one interface implemented as a bus, see id. at 4 (citing Breed
,-r I 79, Figs. IA, 25d, 28), but does not teach "that said bus is a serial
peripheral interface (SPI) bus that enables data communication between the
power supply unit, the ignition output stage, the watchdog, and the at least
6
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
one first interface." Final Action 4; see also id. at 7. However, the
Examiner finds that Kime teaches the use of a serial peripheral interface
(SPI) as a means for enabling data communication between different means,
and that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have incorporated the
teachings of Kime into the control unit taught by Breed and
Matsuda, because Kime' s teachings would have provided one
with a well-known alternative means for implementing a bus,
wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to substitute Kime' s serial peripheral interface (SPI) bus
for Breed's disclosed bus.
Id. at 7-8.
Regarding claim 7, paragraphs H and I, the Examiner finds that Breed
teaches a watchdog for monitoring a processor, see id. at 3, but does not
teach
that said watchdog provides a different evaluation of the a[t] least
one acceleration signal independent of and in parallel to the
initial evaluation and a monitoring of (i) a system of clock of the
integrated circuit, (ii) a proper sequence of software-based
functions of the integrated circuit, and (iii) a built-in self test of
an integrated circuit component, in parallel to each other, and
wherein the integrated circuit triggers an enablement of the at
least one ignition output stage responsive to a verification from
the watchdog of the different evaluation and the parallel
monitoring when the initial evaluation indicates enablement.
Final Action 4--5; see also id. at 8. However, the Examiner finds that all of
this functionality is taught by either the combination of Otterbach and
Schumacher '886, see id. at 8-12, or the combination of Schumacher '349
and Schumacher '886, see id. at 19-22, and that it would have been obvious
for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references with
7
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
Breed, Matsuda, and Kime to result in an integrated circuit according to
claim 7, see id. at 10-12, 20-22.
Appellants argue that Kime is non-analogous art. See Appeal Br. 7-
8.10 According to Appellants, "[t]he Kime reference is directed to a system
for controlling hydraulic actuated components of a truck, such as a
snowplow attached to the front of the truck." Id. at 8. Thus, Appellants
argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to combine Kime with the other references as suggested in the
Final Action. See id. at 7. We do not find Appellants' argument that Kime
is non-analogous to be persuasive. A reference is analogous if either (1)
"the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed," or (2) the reference "is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved." In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While Kime is directed to a different kind of vehicle
actuation system, the Examiner persuasively determines that "the Kime
reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of a vehicle
transmitting data over a bus in which the Appellant is concerned in."
Answer 5. Appellants have not specifically contested the Examiner's
determination about the pertinence of the particular problem addressed by
Kime, and instead have focused on the field of Kime's technology. See
Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Thus, we do not find Appellants' arguments
persuasive of reversible error in the rejection.
10 Appellants make a similar argument regarding a "Pacholok" reference,
which was cited in a previous office action and is not part of the Examiner's
pending rejections. See Answer 4--5. Thus, Appellants' arguments
regarding Pacholok are not relevant to this appeal.
8
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
Appellants also argue that Matsuda does not teach that the voltage
regulator is "coupled to the converter, the energy reserve capacitor, and the
ignition output stage." Appeal Br. 8. In response, the Examiner finds that
since Matsuda's regulator (32) that is clearly coupled to
Matsuda's converter (16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28) is
incorporated into Breed's power supply (12), said regulator (32)
would also be coupled to Breed's energy reserve capacitor
(140/543) and Breed's ignition output stage (output to 510) (via
540) and configured to charge Breed's energy reserve capacitor
(140/543).
Answer 7. Appellants do not specifically respond to the Examiner's finding,
and we find the Examiner's reason to combine Matsuda with Breed to be
persuasive. Therefore, we find no reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that the combination of Breed and Matsuda would have taught
a person of ordinary skill in the art to couple the voltage regulator to the
converter, the energy reserve capacitor, and the ignition output stage as
required by claim 7.
Claim 25 recites the integrated circuit of claim 7,
wherein the converter includes a DC voltage converter wherein
the converter is at least in part for a 6. 7V power supply unit,
wherein the integrated circuit implements reset management,
wherein the watchdog includes three stages, wherein the at least
one first interface is implemented as a CAN bus or as a K line,
wherein the three-stage watchdog monitors a system time clock,
a correct sequence of system-relevant software-based functions,
and built-in self-tests of system components, and wherein the
reset is produced in events including overvoltage, undervoltage,
watchdog error, and to reset the logic of the control unit
processor.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 3. The Examiner finds that Matsuda teaches "that
the converter inc[l]udes a DC voltage converter." Final Action 13 (citing
Matsuda 2: 12-3:39, 3:63-5:67, 8:41-9:45, Figs. 1, 7). The Examiner also
9
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
finds that the Matsuda and the other references "teach a converter that is
capable of being at least in part used for a 6.7V power supply unit." The
Examiner also determines that the 6. 7V power supply limitation is an
intended use that does not structurally limit claim 25. Id. The Examiner
also finds that Breed teaches all the additional limitations of claim 26, which
depends from claim 25. See id. (citing Breed i-fi-f 184--86, 365-70, 408-13,
Figs. IA, 25D).
Appellants argue that claim 25 is structurally limited by the
requirement that the converter is at least in part for a 6. 7V power supply
unit, and that this voltage is not disclosed in the references. Appeal Br. 9-
10. While we agree with Appellants that the 6. 7V power supply limitation
constrains the structure of claim 25, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting the claim. Matsuda teaches reducing a DC
voltage from one level to another, and gives 7.5 V and 17.6 Vas examples
of possible voltages at input terminal 11, depending on the power input
source. See iviatsuda 4: 1-7. Thus, iviatsuda teaches that the disclosed DC-
DC converter may be adapted depending on the voltage of the available
power source, and gives an example of such a voltage, 7.5 V, that is near the
voltage specified in claim 25. Moreover, Appellants have not pointed to any
factual evidence on this record that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have been dissuaded from using a 6. 7 V power
supply, or that use of such a power supply would have led to any unexpected
properties. Therefore, we do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of
reversible error in the rejection.
Appellants also argue that in rejecting claims 25 and 26, the Examiner
did not provide a substantive rejection referencing the specific limitations of
the claims. See Appeal Br. 10-11. In the Answer, the Examiner explained
10
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
that each of the limitations of claims 25 and 26 are also found in claims 7,
11, 15, 20, and 22-24, and "in order to shorten the length of the Examiner's
11/26/2013 Office Action, the Examiner just focused on the
limitations/features of Appellant's dependent claim 25 that had not been
already/previously rejected." Answer 10; see also Final Action 13, 23
(specifically addressing the limitations of claim 22 and 23 that are also
found in claim 25). The limitations of claim 26 are substantially the same as
in claims 7, 8, and 25. Compare Appeal Br. Claim App. 3 with id. at 1, 2.
The Examiner has found that the additional limitations of claims 8, 11, 15,
20, and 24 are disclosed in Breed, the primary reference. 11 See Final Action
12, 13, 22, 23; Answer 10-13. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument that the Examiner has not provided a substantive basis for
rejecting each of the limitations of claims 25 and 26.
For the above reasons, and by a preponderance of the evidence on this
record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's decision
to reject claim 7, 25, and 26. For the same reasons, we find no reversible
error in the Examiner's decision to reject claims 8, 11, 15, 20, and 22-24.
11 Appellants have not contested the Examiner's specific grounds for
rejecting claims 8, 11, 15, 20, and 22-24. See Appeal Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-
4.
11
Appeal2015-003381
Application 11/666,842
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
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
12