Ex Parte Trinh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12733552 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121733,552 07/01/2010 Hoang Trinh
26646 7590 02/18/2016
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
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.
1019116140 2282
EXAMINER
HILGENDORF, DALE W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
uspto@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOANG TRINH
Appeal2013-007411
Application 12/733,552
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and
JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hoang Trinh (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner's rejections of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCurdy (US 7,278,657 Bl, issued Oct. 9, 2007). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and control unit for activating an
occupant protection device for a vehicle. Spec. 1, 11. 3--4. Claims 11 and 16
Appeal2013-007411
Application 12/733,552
are independent. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
11. A method for activating an occupant protection unit for a
vehicle, comprising:
generating a first signal of a first sensor system of the
vehicle;
generating an activation signal as a function of the first
signal;
gating at least two further signals to form a validation
output, wherein the at least two further signals are at least one
acceleration signal and at least one structure-borne noise signal;
and
activating the occupant protection unit only if the
activation signal is plausible based on the validation output.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 11 recites "[a] method for activating an occupant
protection unit for a vehicle." Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. Independent
claim 16 recites "[a] control unit for activating an occupant protection unit
for a vehicle" that is configured to operate in accordance with the steps of
claim 11. See id. at Claims App. 1-2. The Examiner finds that McCurdy
teaches the method of claim 11 except for "the claimed gating of the
acceleration signal and the structure-borne noise signal." Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner further finds that Mc Curdy' s crash discrimination function 94
processes all of the incoming signals from McCurdy's sensors, including
signals from accelerometers 90, 92 and ultrasonic sensor 82. Id. at 3. The
Examiner determines that:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to combine the occupant
protection control crash discrimination processing of McCurdy
2
Appeal2013-007411
Application 12/733,552
Id.
with the signal gating within the crash discrimination functions
in order to discriminate between deployment and non-
deployment crash events before the final evaluation of the
actuation signals.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that each of McCurdy's crush zone
sensors 36, 38, 40 generates a signal corresponding to the recited first sensor
signal. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that McCurdy discloses that the
signals from crush zone sensors 36, 38, 40 "hav[e] the electronic
characteristic functionality related to the crash acceleration," and thus, the
signals correspond to the recited activation signal. Id. (referencing McCurdy
4: 19-21 ). The Examiner also finds that crash sensor 32 is the recited
accelerometer and crash sensing device 34 is an acoustic transducer-
generating signals corresponding to the recited at least one acceleration
signal and the at least one structure-borne noise signal. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner further finds that
crash discrimination module 94 receives and processes signals
from crush zone sensors 36, 38 and 40, crash sensor 32
(accelerometer), and ultrasonic sensor 34 (column 3 line 38 thru
column 4 line 26), and provides signals 104, 106 and 108 for
controlling the actuation of the occupant protection devices 18,
20 and 22 (column 6 lines 42 thru 45) these actuation signals
are based on the accelerometer, ultrasonic sensor and the crush
zones sensors and are further gated with a safing function 116
in order to verify the actuation signal.
Id. at 2-3 (referencing McCurdy's Figure 2, 6:45--49). The Examiner
provides that this disclosure corresponds to the step of activating the
occupant protection unit only if the activation signal is plausible based on
the validation output. See id. at 2.
Appellant argues that McCurdy fails to disclose an activation signal
generated as a function of a first signal-that is, McCurdy fails to disclose
3
Appeal2013-007411
Application 12/733,552
that the signals from crush zone sensors 36, 38, 40 instruct the system to
activate an occupant protection unit-as required by independent claims 11
and 16. Appeal Br. 6. In response, the Examiner explains that crash
discrimination function 94 generates signals 104, 106, 108 based on
processing signals from crush zone sensors 36, 38, 40, such that signals 104,
106, 108 correspond to the recited activation signal, an explanation that
differs somewhat from the position taken by the Examiner in the Final
Action. Compare Answer 4 with Final Act. 2 (identifying signals 104, 106,
108 as the recited activation signal in the Answer but relying on the signals
from sensors 36, 38, 40 in the Final Action for this claim element). The
Examiner further explains that crash discriminator 94 processes signals from
McCurdy's accelerometers and ultrasonic sensor and that it would have been
obvious for crash discriminator 94 to use gates with respect to these signals
as part of the processing. Id.
In reply, Appellant argues that, even if the Examiner is correct that it
would have been an obvious modification to gate the signals from
McCurdy' s accelerometers and ultrasonic sensor in crash discriminator 94,
such knowledge would not arrive at the subject matter of claims 11 and 16.
Reply Br. 3--4. We agree.
As Appellant explains, McCurdy's validation signal is produced by
safing function 118, and not crash discriminator 94. Reply Br. 3; see also
McCurdy, Fig. 2, 6:50-57 (explaining the operation of safing function 118).
Safing function 118 does not receive signals from McCurdy's
accelerometers. See McCurdy, Fig. 2. Instead, McCurdy produces signals
104, 106, 108 (corresponding to the recited activation signal according to the
Examiner) after processing input from all of the sensors. Id. These signals
are then processed through AND gates with safing signal 116, which is
4
Appeal2013-007411
Application 12/733,552
produced as a function of the ultrasonic sensor only. Id. As such, even if
signals from McCurdy's accelerometers and ultrasonic sensor are gated in
crash discriminator 94, such an action would not form a validation output as
required in claims 11 and 16.
For the reasons above, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCurdy. We also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 12-15, which depend directly or indirectly from claim
11, and claims 17-20, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 16, for
at least the reason that the rejection of these claims is based on the
deficiencies discussed above in connection with our analysis of claims 11
and 16.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
11-20.
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).
REVERSED
5