Ex Parte Singh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13795761 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
13/795,761 03/12/2013 Kanwar Bharat Singh DN2013-047 7356
27280 7590 10/02/2017
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
200 Innovation Way
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
EXAMINER
ROBERTS, HERBERT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
kathleen.swisher@goodyear.com
patents @ goodyear.com
pair_goodyear @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KANWAR BHARAT SINGH
Appeal 2017-000089
Application 13/795,7611
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
1 Appellants are The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, identified as the
real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3), and Kan war Bharat Singh.
2 In our Opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection mailed July 8, 2015 (“Final
Act.”); the Advisory Action mailed November 13, 2015 (“Adv. Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed December 8, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”); the Corrected Appeal
Brief filed April 12, 2016 (“Corrected Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed July 26, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed September 23, 2016
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-000089
Application 13/795,761
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a tire load estimation system and method
for estimating a tire load for a vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A tire load estimation system for a vehicle comprising:
at least one tire mounted to a wheel hub and supporting a
vehicle chassis;
at least one tire static load sensor mounted to the at least
one tire for detecting a measured static tire load;
a tire static load estimator for calculating an estimated
tire static load on the at least one tire based on the measured
static tire load;
at least one vehicle chassis-mounted sensor for
measuring a vehicle chassis vertical deflection;
a tire deflection estimator for determining a tire vertical
deflection estimate from the estimated tire static load and the
vehicle chassis vertical deflection;
a load variation estimator for determining a load
variation estimate from the tire vertical deflection estimate; and
a tire load estimator operative to determine a
substantially instantaneous load on the at least one tire based on
the estimated tire static load and the load variation estimate.
Corrected Appeal Br. 2 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2017-000089
Application 13/795,761
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Love, Jr., et al. US 4,364,267 Dec. 21,1982
(“Love”)
Hillenmayer et al. US 2005/0097949 Al May 12, 2005
(“Hillenmayer”)
Gouriet et al. US 2010/0198527 Al Aug. 5, 2010
(“Gouriet”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: (1)
claims 1—14, 16, and 17 over Hillenmayer in view of Gouriet; and (2) claim
15 over Hillenmayer in view of Gouriet, and further in view of Love. Final
Act. 5, 21.
OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite tire load estimation systems and
require a vehicle chassis-mounted sensor for measuring a vehicle chassis
vertical deflection and a tire deflection estimator that uses the vehicle chassis
vertical deflection in combination with the static tire load to estimate a tire
deflection. Independent claim 13 recites a method of estimating tire load
that includes steps of detecting a measured vehicle chassis vertical deflection
using a sensor and estimating tire deflection from vehicle chassis vertical
deflection and static tire load.
The Examiner finds that Hillenmayer fails to teach a vehicle chassis-
mounted sensor for measuring a chassis vertical deflection or a tire
deflection estimator that employs the vehicle chassis vertical deflection to
3
Appeal 2017-000089
Application 13/795,761
determine a tire deflection. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Gouriet
teaches at least one vehicle chassis-mounted sensor for measuring a vehicle
chassis vertical deflection. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to use Gouriet’s vehicle chassis-mounted sensor in
Hillenmayer’s device to increase accuracy. Id. at 6—7. The Examiner
determines that inclusion of Gouriet’s sensors allows identification and
correction of inaccuracies or errors. Id. at 7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness because, inter alia, the Examiner provides no
explanation to one of ordinary skill in the art of how to combine the cited
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants
contend that the addition of Gouriet does not cure the lack of instruction to
one skilled in the art. Id. at 8.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Hyatt v. Dudas,
492 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“In the prosecution of a patent, the
initial burden falls on the PTO to set forth the basis for any rejection; i.e., a
prima facie case.”). To support an obviousness rejection, the examiner must
provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning.” KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner commits reversible error in rejecting claim 1 as obvious
over Hillenmayer in view of Gouriet. The Examiner does not explain how
Hillenmayer’s teaching of quasi-static tire deformation corresponding to
loadi ng on the tire and Gouriet’s teaching of accelerometers on the vehicle
4
Appeal 2017-000089
Application 13/795,761
body would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the
limitation of “a tire deflection estimator for determining a tire vertical
deflection estimate from the estimated tire static load and the vehicle chassis
vertical deflection” in claim 1, Corrected Appeal Br. 2 (Claims App’x), or
equivalent limitations in independent claims 8 and 13. Therefore, the
Examiner fails to meet KSR’s requirement for articulated reasoning backed
by rational underpinning.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—17 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5