Ex Parte Wu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

10906264 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

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