Ex Parte Worrel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2012

10708854 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETER F. WORREL
____________

Appeal 2009-011753
Application 10/708,854
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN and MICHAEL C.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011753
Application 10/708,854

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter F. Worrel (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and method for
providing regenerative and friction braking in a vehicle. Independent claim
1 is illustrative:
1. A system for providing regenerative and friction
braking in a vehicle, comprising:
a brake controller for determining a desired rate of
deceleration from sensor outputs which are responsive to inputs
from an operator of the vehicle;
a regenerative braking system operatively connected with
said brake controller and with one or more roadwheels of said
vehicle, with said regenerative braking system being
commanded by said brake controller to produce a braking
torque corresponding to the desired rate of deceleration;
a primary speed sensing system, operatively connected
with said brake controller, for determining the speed and
deceleration of said vehicle;
a primary comparator, operatively connected with said
brake controller, for comparing the desired rate of deceleration
with the rate of deceleration determined by said primary speed
sensing system;
a brake monitor for receiving said sensor inputs from the
operator of the vehicle, and for determining an audit range of
deceleration of the vehicle;
a redundant deceleration sensor, operatively connected
with said brake monitor, for determining the vehicle's
deceleration;
Appeal 2009-011753
Application 10/708,854

3
a secondary comparator, operatively connected with said
brake monitor, for comparing the audit range of deceleration
with the output from said redundant deceleration sensor; and
a friction braking system, operatively connected with
both said brake controller and with said brake monitor, for
providing additional braking in the event that the comparison
results from either the primary comparator or the secondary
comparator indicate that said regenerative braking system is not
producing the commanded rate of deceleration.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Koga (US 5,839,800, issued Nov. 24, 1998) in
view of Gerstenmaier (JP 06144153 A, published May 24, 1994)1. The
Examiner also rejected claim 2 as being unpatentable over Koga,
Gerstenmaier and Byrne (US 4,094,555, issued Jun. 13, 1978); and claims 9
and 11 as unpatentable over Koga, Gerstenmaier and Crombez (US
6,655,754 B2, issued Dec. 2, 2003).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner establish that the combination of the teachings of
Koga and Gerstenmaier discloses or renders obvious a system having a
primary comparator for comparing the rate of deceleration determined by a
primary speed sensing system to a desired rate of deceleration, and a

1 The Examiner maintains that US 5,372,411, issued Dec. 13, 1994, is an
English equivalent to this Japanese reference. Appellant does not appear to
take issue with this representation, although, at one point in the Appeal Brief
(Br. 5), Appellant quotes a passage from an English-language translation of
the Abstract of the Japanese reference, which passage is not verbatim
present in the Abstract of US 5,372,411.
Appeal 2009-011753
Application 10/708,854

4
secondary comparator for comparing an output from a redundant
deceleration sensor to an audit range of deceleration of a vehicle?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Koga teaches a deceleration sensor that
employs a combination of a wheel speed sensor and a weight displacement
sensor to determine deceleration, but that Koga lacks a teaching of
“comparing the two values to a target deceleration or redundancy”. Ans. 3.
The Examiner relies on Gerstenmaier as teaching redundancy in sensors in
vehicle braking systems, as well as teaching both a deceleration sensor and a
speed sensor. Ans. 3. From this, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to have provided the Koga system “with redundancy in the
sensing of the deceleration as taught by Gerstenmaier to improve the vehicle
safety and ensure operation of the brakes.” Ans. 4.
Appellant’s principal argument is that the combined teachings of
Koga and Gerstenmaier do not “teach[] using the results of separate sensors
with separate comparators, . . . , to determine whether braking is proceeding
as desired by the driver of a vehicle”. Br. 5. The Examiner responds to this
by further characterizing Koga as teaching, “the use of separate deceleration
detecting devices each capable of sensing a value”, and again notes that
Koga “lacks the specific teaching of separately comparing each of these
values with a target deceleration.” Ans. 6. The Examiner further observes
that Koga does compare a G sensor value with a target deceleration. Id.
Koga discloses that the G sensor referenced by the Examiner may be
of a type that uses both detection of displacement of a weight to detect
deceleration, and calculation of deceleration by differentiating wheel
Appeal 2009-011753
Application 10/708,854

5
rotational speed. Koga, col. 6, ll. 57-64. It appears that the Examiner is
regarding these two components of the sensor disclosed in Koga as “separate
deceleration detecting devices”. Since they actually are disclosed as being
components of a single “G sensor”, it is not surprising that the values
obtained by each of the components are not separately compared with a
target deceleration. This causes us to question whether a modification in
view of Gerstenmaier merely to provide some form of redundancy would
result in a system in which a primary and secondary comparator would be
provided to compare outputs from respective, separate deceleration sensing
devices.
In any event, the Examiner, in further responding to Appellant’s
argument, appears to rely more extensively on the teachings of
Gerstenmaier, maintaining that microprocessors 15, 16, constitute first and
second comparators. Ans. 6. The Examiner maintains that column 2, line
39, of Gerstenmaier establishes that the microprocessors have “comparison
means”, and that Figure 3 of Gerstenmaier “shows a wheel speed sensor
input (11) into a first comparator (15) and a deceleration input (14) into a
second comparator (16)(Column 2 lines 18-30).” Id. The Examiner
concludes that “it would be obvious to modify the computing means [sic, of]
Koga to provide redundancy processing as taught by Gerstenmaier merely to
increase the safety of the vehicle.” Id.
The Examiner has not adequately established that the microprocessors
15, 16, of Gerstenmaier operate as “comparators” in processing the wheel
speed sensor input and the deceleration input. The reference in
Gerstenmaier to “redundancy comparison” is to a characteristic of the
operating system software and the basic safety software for both of the
Appeal 2009-011753
Application 10/708,854

6
system-specific (antilock brake system, restraint system) user programs.
Gerstenmaier, col. 2, ll. 36-40. The Examiner has not explained how, and
we do not see how, such “redundancy comparison” applies to the specific
inputs of wheel speed and deceleration, and the comparison of the same to a
desired rate of acceleration and an audit range of deceleration, respectively.
Further, Gerstenmaier describes only that the “vehicle deceleration is
determined and processed” and that “the wheel speeds are determined and
converted to brake pressure control signals” by the microprocessors.
Gerstenmaier, col. 2, ll. 44-49. Neither action clearly conveys that the
microprocessors of Gerstenmaier are performing a comparison of a detected
value to a desired value. The Examiner has not cogently explained how the
vehicle deceleration being “processed” or the wheel speeds being “converted
to brake pressure control signals” amounts to a disclosure of, or, in
combination with the teachings of Koga, renders obvious, providing “a
primary comparator, . . ., for comparing the desired rate of deceleration with
the rate of deceleration determined by said primary speed sensing system”
and “a secondary comparator, . . ., for comparing the audit range of
deceleration with the output from said redundant deceleration sensor”, as set
forth in claim 1.
The rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3-8 and 10 depending
therefrom, as unpatentable over Koga and Gerstenmaier is thus not
sustained.
The rejection of claim 2 as being unpatentable over Koga,
Gerstenmaier and Byrne, and that of claims 9 and 11 as being unpatentable
over Koga, Gerstenmaier and Crombez, rely on the same rationale employed
Appeal 2009-011753
Application 10/708,854

7
in rejecting claim 1. For the reasons noted in the discussion above, the
rejections of claims 2, 9 and 11 are not sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not establish that the combination of the teachings
of Koga and Gerstenmaier discloses or renders obvious a system having a
primary comparator for comparing the rate of deceleration determined by a
primary speed sensing system to a desired rate of deceleration, and a
secondary comparator for comparing an output from a redundant
deceleration sensor to an audit range of deceleration of a vehicle.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-8 and 10 as unpatentable over Koga and
Gerstenmaier is reversed.
The rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Koga, Gerstenmaier and
Byrne is reversed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 11 as unpatentable over Koga,
Gerstenmaier and Crombez is reversed.

REVERSED

mls