Ex Parte Tiberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2012

11561506 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD L. TIBERG
____________

Appeal 2010-005556
Application 11/561,506
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005556
Application 11/561,506

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Richard L. Tiberg (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.

1. A control system for controlling a transmission of a
vehicle including a telematics system, comprising:
a grade module that determines a current grade based on
an altitude signal received from the telematics system;
a force balance module that computes a vehicle mass
based on a force balance equation and the current grade; and
a transmission control module that controls the
transmission based on the vehicle mass.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:

Iwaki US 5,319,555 June 7, 1994
Brodie US 2002/0128775 A1 Sept. 12, 2002
Han US 6,625,535 B2 Sept. 23, 2003
Rejections
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iwaki and Brodie; and
II. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Iwaki, Brodie, and Han.
Appeal 2010-005556
Application 11/561,506

3

SUMMARY OF DECISION

We REVERSE.
OPINION
Rejection I – Iwaki and Brodie
The central issue in this appeal is whether Iwaki discloses “a force
balance module that computes a vehicle mass based on a force balance
equation and the current grade” as recited by the claims. App. Br. 9-11.
The Examiner concluded that Iwaki and Brodie render obvious the
subject matter of claims 1-11 and 13. Ans. 3-6. Specifically, the Examiner
relied on Iwaki as disclosing a force balance module that computes a vehicle
mass based on a force balance equation and current grade. Id. at 3 (citing
Iwaki, col. 5, ll. 31-35).
Appellant contends that the cited portion of Iwaki discloses two
equations—equation (1) and (2)—that are used to determine the driving
resistance “R,” not vehicle mass. App. Br. 9. Appellant asserts that while
vehicle mass is a variable in equations (1) and (2), vehicle mass is
“determined from the detection value of the suspension stroke sensor 52
based on predetermined characteristics.” Id. at 10. Thus, Appellant
contends that Iwaki teaches that the vehicle mass is detected by the
suspension stroke sensor, and then used as a variable in equations (1) and (2)
to determine the driving resistance “R.” Id. Appellant further asserts that
Brodie also fails to disclose a force balance module that computes a vehicle
mass based on a force balance equation and the current grade. Id.
In response, the Examiner first asserts that vehicle mass and road
gradient are not predetermined; rather, they are determined using Iwaki’s
Appeal 2010-005556
Application 11/561,506

4
method—“computed based on equations (1) and (2) which are force balance
equations.” Ans. 7. Second, the Examiner contends that vehicle mass is
calculated in step “S122” of Iwaki. Id. at 8. The Examiner found that since
Iwaki discloses that “the suspension stroke sensor is an input and is put
through ‘predetermined characteristics’ which would be obvious to one of
ordinary skill implies a force balance equation.” Id. at 8-9.
In reply, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s first argument fails
to acknowledge that Iwaki discloses that equations (1) and (2) are not used
to calculate vehicle mass. Reply Br. 5-6. Second, Appellant notes that
Iwaki does not disclose the “predetermined characteristics” employed to
calculate the vehicle mass based on the suspension stroke sensor. Id. at 7.
Thus, even assuming it would have been obvious to use a force balance
equation to determine vehicle mass using the suspension stroke sensor,
“Iwaki clearly does not disclose computing the vehicle mass based on the
current grade when using the suspension stroke sensor.” Id.
An Examiner’s factual finding regarding what a reference discloses
must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney,
761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the evidence is the
standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”); see also In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Plager, J., concurring) (“In
rejecting an application, factual determinations by the PTO must be based on
a preponderance of the evidence, and legal conclusions must be correct.”)
(citation omitted).
We disagree with the Examiner that Iwaki teaches “a force balance
module that computes a vehicle mass based on a force balance equation and
the current grade” as required by the claims. First, contrary to the
Appeal 2010-005556
Application 11/561,506

5
Examiner’s finding, Iwaki does not disclose computing a vehicle mass based
on equations (1) and (2). Rather, equations (1) and (2) use the vehicle mass
as a variable to calculate the driving resistance. See Iwaki, col. 5, ll. 7-45
(“The variables in the equation (2) are the vehicle weight W, which varies
with the number of passengers and the amount of cargo, and the grade sin ϴ,
which differs depending on the inclination of the road surface, and all of
these factors are included in the driving resistance.”). The vehicle mass is
determined by the detection value of the suspension stroke sensor 52 based
on predetermined characteristics. Id. at col. 7, ll. 8-12 (“step S122 in which
the actual vehicle mass (weight) M including the mass (weight) of the
passengers and any cargo is determined from the detection value of the
suspension stroke sensor 52 based on predetermined characteristics”).
Specifically, “[i]n the vicinity of a suspension 50 mounted at each wheel a
suspension stroke sensor 52 is provided for detecting the weight of the
passenger(s) and cargo of the vehicle though the amount of depression of a
coil spring . . . of the suspension 50.” Id. at col. 3, l. 66 - col. 4, l. 2. Thus,
Iwaki does not disclose computing the vehicle mass using equation (1) or
(2).
Second, while Iwaki does not disclose the precise “predetermined
characteristics” upon which the vehicle mass is determined in light of the
detection value of the suspension stroke sensor, the Examiner has not
pointed us to any teaching or suggestion that such characteristics include
“current grade,” as required by the claims. Thus, even if we were to assume
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
detection value of the suspension stroke sensor and predetermined
characteristics are employed in a force balance equation, the Examiner failed
Appeal 2010-005556
Application 11/561,506

6
to find that the “current grade” is also a variable or parameter in computing
the vehicle mass.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II – Iwaki, Brodie, and Han
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and thus also requires “a force
balance module that computes a vehicle mass based on a force balance
equation and the current grade. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 does
not rely on Han for the disclosure of this element of the claim; rather, the
rejection relies upon the same erroneous finding regarding Iwaki analyzed in
the first rejection, supra. See Ans. 6-7. Accordingly, we do not sustain
Rejection II.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13.

REVERSED

Klh