Ex parte TAKEUCHI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 1998

07883162 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 15, 1992. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KUNIHIRO TAKEUCHI
____________
Appeal No. 95-3377
Application No. 07/883,1621
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before MARTIN, JERRY SMITH, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative
Patent Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claim 3,
which constitutes the only claim remaining in the application.
Claim 3 reads as follows:
3. A control system for a vehicle safety device
comprising:
Appeal No. 95-3377
Application No. 07/883,162
2
(a) an acceleration sensor for detecting acceleration of
a vehicle;
(b) acceleration correction means for multiplying said
acceleration from said acceleration sensor by a gain in order
to correct it;
(c) an EEPROM, numerical values equal to each other being
written, as said gain, into three or more memory areas of a
first group in said EEPROM, complementary numerical values of
said numerical values representing said gain being written
respectively into three or more memory areas of a second group
in said EEPROM;
(d) acceleration evaluation means for judging whether or
not a collision of said vehicle has occurred based on such
corrected acceleration, and outputting a trigger signal to
said vehicle safety device when the judgement result is "YES";
(e) gain setting means for setting said gain, said gain
setting means including (i) first means for judging whether or
not said numerical values representing said gain, stored in
said first group memory areas in said EEPROM are equal to each
other, and preliminarily determining said numerical value
belonging to the majority among all said numerical values
representing said gain as a temporary proper gain, (ii) second
means for judging whether or not said complementary numerical
values stored in said second group memory areas are equal to
each other, and preliminarily determining said complementary
numerical value belonging to the majority among all said
complementary numerical values, and (iii) third means for
judging whether or not said temporary proper gain is in
complementary relation with said complementary numerical value
belonging to the majority, and determining said temporary
proper gain as a proper gain under the condition that said
third means makes affirmative judgment, and further providing
said proper gain to said correction means; and
(f) alarm instruction means for actuating an alarm device
when said gain setting means makes at least one negative
judgment.
Appeal No. 95-3377
Application No. 07/883,162
3
The examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Hannoyer 4,497,025 Jan. 29, 1985
Okano et al. (Okano) 5,182,459 Jan. 26, 1993
(filed Jan. 18, 1991)
Chau et al. (Chau) 5,200,963 Apr. 6, 1993
(filed Jan. 26, 1990)
Sato 55-90000 July 8, 1980
(Japanese Kokai Patent)
OPINION
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hannoyer in view of Sato, Chau, and Okano.

We reverse for the reasons given by Appellant amplified
as follows.
The examiner states correctly that it was known in the
art to enhance the validity of data against degradation by
storing multiple copies of data for mutual comparison.
Examiner’s Answer at 11. It was also known in the art to
store complements of each copy and to test whether each stored
complement is in fact in complementary relation to each copy.
Chau at column 6, lines 4-16; Specification at 3, lines 2-19.
Further, it was known to increase resiliency against multiple
Appeal No. 95-3377
Application No. 07/883,162
4
faults by increasing redundancy such as in a “3-out-of-5
system.” Chau at column 2, lines 17-21.
The examiner also finds that it was known to compare
complements against each other. Examiner’s answer at 11-12.
The examiner does not cite any evidence to support that
finding. Upon reviewing the four cited references and the
admitted prior art, we are unable to identify any support for
the finding. In fact, in each of those prior art systems that
has complements of multiple copies, the complements are
compared only to the multiple copies and not to other
complements.
Having failed to establish any knowledge of comparing
complements against each other, the examiner fails to
establish any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have made a majority determination among three or more
complements, and then compared that result to a majority
result from three or more uncomplemented copies. Without such
a suggestion, the rejection cannot be sustained. The mere
fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
Appeal No. 95-3377
Application No. 07/883,162
5
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claim 3 is not sustained.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 95-3377
Application No. 07/883,162
6
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JTC/gjh
Appeal No. 95-3377
Application No. 07/883,162
7
FISH & RICHARDSON
601 13th STREET N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3808