Ex Parte Wu et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 30, 201210906264 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte FUBANG WU, CLIFF CHOU, JIANBO LU and JOSEPH C. MEYERS ____________________ Appeal 2010-007628 Application 10/906,264 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007628 Application 10/906,264 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Fubang Wu et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a control system and method for deploying a safety device aboard a vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of deploying a safety device aboard a vehicle, said method comprising the steps of: operating a plurality of sensors so as to generate outputs that are indicative of the dynamic operating conditions of said vehicle; activating a dynamic control system according to at least some of said outputs generated by said sensors so as to attempt to improve the stability of said vehicle; operating said dynamic control system so as to attempt to prevent said vehicle from rolling over; determining a roll trend of said vehicle according to at least some of said outputs generated by said sensors during operation of said dynamic control system; and activating said safety device when said roll trend indicates that said dynamic control system is unable to prevent said vehicle from experiencing a rollover condition. Appeal 2010-007628 Application 10/906,264 3 THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejection: Claims 1-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi (US 7,165,008 B2, issued Jan. 16, 2007) in view of Watson (US 7,057,503 B2, issued Jun. 6, 2006). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in concluding that Choi discloses “determining a roll trend”? Ans. 4. ANALYSIS Appellants argue claims 1-41 as a group. App. Br. 11-14. We take claim 1 as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), and claims 2-41 stand or fall with claim 1. Appellants argue that Choi, even if combined with Watson, does not disclose the claim limitation “determining a roll trend.”1 App. Br. 11. The Examiner takes the position that the rollover potentiality index determination described in Choi is a determination of a roll trend. Ans. 4. Appellants dispute this position, asserting that determination of a roll trend as claimed “is an accumulative direction indicator” and a “cumulative determination made over time.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 1. We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ Specification does not compel that the term “roll trend” be restricted to this narrow definition. Ans. 11. The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary 1 Appellants’ Specification includes the terms “rollover trend,” “rolling trend,” and “roll trend,” all of which appear to refer to the same attribute. We will use the term “roll trend” to refer to this attribute. Appeal 2010-007628 Application 10/906,264 4 meaning, which is the meaning the words would have to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). During examination, patent claims are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. Id. at 1316. Our reviewing court has recognized that “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess,” in which case, “the inventor's lexicography governs.” Id. To be his or her own lexicographer, an inventor must define specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” so as to give notice of the special meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, Appellants’ Specification does not clearly set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, a special definition of “roll trend” that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning. As noted by the Examiner, the term “roll trend” is described in the Specification in permissive, non-specific terms2, and such exemplary language does not set forth a clear lexicographic definition. Appellants have not demonstrated that one of ordinary skill would understand the Specification to provide a special definition for the term “roll trend.” Accordingly, we decline to adopt Appellants’ position that a “roll trend” is an “accumulative direction indicator” or a “cumulative determination.” We agree with the Examiner that to do so would be improperly reading limitations from the specification into the claim. 2 “The roll trend may use an accumulative directional indicator to determine whether the trend of the vehicle is toward rolling over.” Abst. (emphasis added). “[The roll] trend may be shown as an increase/decrease of the roll angle and/or the roll rate.” Spec., p. 9, para. [0056] (emphasis added). Appeal 2010-007628 Application 10/906,264 5 Accordingly, we construe the term “roll trend” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning. The Examiner construes the plain meaning of “roll trend” to be an indication or showing of a tendency to roll. Ans. 12. We see no reason to disagree with this interpretation. Indeed, we note that Appellants assert that the term “trend” is defined as “showing a tendency or following a general course.” Reply Br. 1. Thus, Appellants’ definition of “trend” supports the conclusion that the ordinary and customary meaning of “roll trend” is a tendency to roll.3 Applying this meaning of “roll trend,” we agree with the Examiner that Choi, in teaching the determination of a rollover potentiality index, discloses determining a roll trend. As its name suggests, the rollover potentiality index indicates a vehicle’s potential to rollover: When the rollover rollover potentiality index (Φ0) 26 is positive, the vehicle 10 has a potential to rollover. The potential to rollover increases with an increasing rollover potentiality index (Φ0) 26. However, a large rollover potentiality index (Φ0) 26 alone does not necessarily indicate that the vehicle 10 will rollover. Choi, col. 5, ll. 13-18. This description clearly reveals that the rollover potentiality index provides an indication of a tendency to roll and thus can properly be deemed to be a “roll trend.” Appellants also argue that Choi’s rollover potentiality index is a threshold value that does not indicate a trend. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2. This line of reasoning is unpersuasive. Even if the rollover potentiality index is properly characterized as a threshold value, that does not distinguish 3 In the context of Appellants’ Specification, “roll” refers to rotation of a body about its longitudinal axis, as distinguished from yaw, which refers to rotation about a vertical axis, and pitch, which refers to rotation about a lateral axis. Appeal 2010-007628 Application 10/906,264 6 the index from being a “roll trend,” as recited in the claims. Appellants have not established that a “roll trend” cannot be related to a threshold value. In fact, Appellants’ Specification indicates the contrary: The energy threshold may be used to determine a roll trend. Also, other variables may be compared to a threshold to determine a roll trend. A combination of comparisons may also be used. For example, comparing lateral velocity, forward velocity, roll rate, roll angle, and yaw rate to respective thresholds may be performed. The thresholds are set during vehicle testing and development. Spec., p. 11, para. [0060] (emphasis added). So, the fact that the rollover index (which is based on the rollover potentiality index) is compared to a threshold does not preclude it from being a roll trend as claimed. For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-41 grouped therewith, as being obvious over Choi in view of Watson. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in concluding that Choi discloses “determining a roll trend”. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Watson is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation