Ex Parte WorrelDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 29, 201210708854 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation