Ex Parte Sokoll

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2014

12027673 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUENTHER SOKOLL
____________

Appeal 2012-007835
Application 12/027,673
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN and
TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Guenther Sokoll (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a brake control system.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A brake control system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
an electronic control unit operably configured to perform a
parking brake function, wherein when the motor vehicle is
Appeal 2012-007835
Application 12/027,673

2
stationary, the parking brake function is activable manually or
automatically; and

wherein upon reaching a predefined release condition of the
parking brake function, the electronic control unit controls a
release of a brake pressure, which was built-up for the parking
brake function, in a time offset manner as between at least a
first axle and a second axle of the motor vehicle, such that the
brake pressure is released initially at wheels of the first axle and
then time-offset at wheels of the second axle.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1–8 and 14–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leiter (US 7,744,166 B2, issued June 29, 2010) in view of
Reinecke (US 4,685,745, issued Aug. 11, 1987);
(ii) claims 9–13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leiter in view of Reinecke and Vagstedt (US 6,378,957
B1, issued Apr. 30, 2002); and
(iii) claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Leiter in view of Reinecke, Vagstedt and Nitta (US 2006/0238020 A1,
published Oct. 26, 2006).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–8 and 14–17--Obviousness--Leiter/Reinecke
Appellant takes the position that the Examiner has failed to establish
that the combination of the Leiter and Reinecke references renders obvious a
system or method in which a release of brake pressure is effected in a time
offset manner as between a first and second axle of a motor vehicle, as
Appeal 2012-007835
Application 12/027,673

3
claimed. Appeal Br. 5–7. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner
erred in finding that Leiter’s disclosure of a braking force being gradually
released meets the limitation calling for release of braking force at different
axles in a time offset manner. Id.
The Examiner cites to Leiter, column 7, line 63, to column 8, line 20,
as well as Figure 6, as evidencing a release of brake pressure in a time offset
manner, in that, according to the Examiner, those portions of Leiter evidence
that a braking force is released gradually over time. Final Off. Act. 3;
Answer 6. This finding fails to address that the claimed time offset is further
characterized as relating to the release of brake pressure at a first axle and a
second axle, such that the brake pressure is released initially at wheels of the
first axle, and then, at a time offset, at wheels of the second axle.
The Examiner additionally cites to Reinecke as showing that it is well
known in the art to design a braking system to include brake activation
circuits that control various combinations of axles or braking sides. Final
Off. Act. 3; Answer 6. The Examiner reckons from this that, “[o]ne of
ordinary skill is capable of implementing a circuit to activate the brakes of
various axles in a staggered manner,” and that “any variation of releasing
brake pressure in an offset manner would be an obvious design choice.” Id.
The Examiner completes this analysis by concluding that “it would have
been obvious to . . . modify Leiter’s brake control system to include multiple
brake control circuits as taught by Reinecke.” Id. at 4, 7.
As noted by Appellant, the Examiner’s position points to no explicit
disclosure of the releasing of parking brake pressure at first and second axles
in a time offset manner in Leiter. Appeal Br. 8. Thus, even if it were
obvious to include multiple brake control circuits as taught by Reinecke in
Appeal 2012-007835
Application 12/027,673

4
the Leiter brake control system, that alone does not render obvious the time
offset feature in the claims. The Examiner’s position that a person skilled in
the art would be “capable of” designing a brake control system with a time
offset does not establish that it would have been obvious to do so. The
Examiner’s further position that such would constitute an obvious design
choice is entirely lacking in rational underpinnings.
The Examiner attempts to bolster the rejection by asserting that:
modification of the braking system to include individual
braking circuits would logically extend to individual control of
each circuit. Having the ability to individually control[] each
braking circuit but not doing so would be counterintuitive.
Accordingly, individual control of each braking device would
be obvious in light of individual braking circuits.

Answer 7. Even assuming that these assertions have some basis in the
evidentiary record in this appeal, providing individual control to individual
braking circuits has not been shown to teach or suggest the specific control
of parking brake pressure as claimed, wherein a time offset is employed in
releasing the brake pressure from a first and a second axle.
Responding to arguments advanced by Appellant, the Examiner notes
that, “under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a ‘time-offset’ must be
considered to include the start time of zero,” and that the claims do not
exclude “zero” from the time period. Answer 7. Like Appellant (Reply Br.
1), we find it unclear as to how this is germane to either the claims or the
Leiter patent which is relied upon as teaching the feature of a time offset.
To the extent that the Examiner is taking the position that the “time offset”
limitation encompasses scenarios in which the time offset is zero, such that
brake pressure is released at wheels of the first and second axles
Appeal 2012-007835
Application 12/027,673

5
simultaneously, the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable because it
fails to give effect to the claim limitation requiring that “the brake pressure
is released initially at wheels of the first axle and then time-offset at wheels
of the second axle,” which plainly excludes a zero time offset. Appeal Br.,
Claims Appendix.
The Examiner finally maintains that “the prior art of record can also
be interpreted to include an inherent ‘line-bias,’” that would, according to
the Examiner, result in a time delay in effecting changes in braking due to
the different lengths of braking conduit extending from a pressure generator
to a braking caliper. Answer 8. We, like Appellant, are unable to identify
any teaching in either Leiter or Reinecke that explicitly or inferentially
suggests that the systems therein operate with an inherent line-bias. Reply
Br. 3.
Although the Examiner presents an explanation as to what is regarded
as being a line-bias, and how such a line-bias might come into being, the
Examiner points to nothing in “the prior art of record” evidencing that those
prior art systems necessarily operate with a line-bias. Answer 8. Further, as
noted by Appellant (Reply Br. 3–4), the claims require an electronic control
unit to control a release of brake pressure such that braking forces are
released in a time offset manner as between first and second axles. The
Examiner has not shown that any potential line-bias in some unidentified
prior art braking system would fall within the scope of these limitations
under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–8 and 14–17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leiter in view of
Reinecke.
Appeal 2012-007835
Application 12/027,673

6
Claims 9–13 and 19--Obviousness--Leiter/Reinecke/Vagstedt
Claims 9–13 and 19 require the same limitations as are set forth in
claims 1 and 14 discussed above. The Examiner does not rely on Vagstedt
to remedy the above-noted deficiencies in the Leiter and Reinecke
disclosures. The rejection of claims 9–13 and 19 is thus not sustained for the
reasons identified above.
Claim 18--Obviousness--Leiter/Reinecke/Vagstedt/Nitta
Claim 18 requires the same limitations as are set forth in claim 14
discussed above. The Examiner does not rely on Nitta to remedy the above-
noted deficiencies in the Leiter and Reinecke disclosures. The rejection of
claim 18 is thus not sustained for the reasons identified above.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1–19 are reversed.

REVERSED

tkl