Ex Parte Zagorski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12841769 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/841,769 07/22/2010
70422 7590 02/29/2016
INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
CHAD T. ZAGORSKI
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.
P012085-LDA (003.0786) 2728
EXAMINER
YU,ARIELJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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):
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHAD T. ZAGORSKI, AAMRAPALI CHATTERJEE,
NIKOLAI K. MOSHCHUK, and SHIH-KEN CHEN
Appeal2013-004790
Application 12/841, 7 69
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING, and
NINA L. l'viEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-8. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-004790
Application 12/841, 7 69
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A vehicle control method comprising:
during a vehicle control event, determining whether a
previous vehicle control event has occurred within a
predetermined timeframe;
if a previous vehicle control event has occurred within
the predetermined timeframe:
retrieving a stored coefficient of friction value associated
with the previous vehicle control event and setting the current
coefficient of friction equal to the stored coefficient of friction
value;
if a previous vehicle control event has not occurred
within the predetermined timeframe:
iteratively modifying a level of braking of the vehicle
until it is determined that a tire of the vehicle has substantially
lost traction with respect to a surface that is in contact with the
tire;
determining the current coefficient of friction between
the surface and the tire based on the level of braking at the time
the vehicle substantially lost traction with respect to the surface;
and
storing the current coefficient of friction.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ezoe (US 7,983,828 B2, iss. July 19, 2011) and Hae (US 6,125,319,
iss. Sept. 26, 2000).
2. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ezoe, Hae, and
Sherman (US 2009/0276134, pub. Nov. 5, 2009).
3. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ezoe, Hae, and
Isaji (US 2004/0122578 Al, pub. June 24, 2004).
2
Appeal2013-004790
Application 12/841, 7 69
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the appealed claims because neither
reference discloses or suggests "if a previous vehicle control event has not
occurred within the predetermined timeframe: ... determining the current
coefficient of friction between the surface and the tire" as required by
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that there is no disclosure in the prior art of
determining a coefficient of friction if a previous vehicle control event has
not occurred within a predetermined timeframe as required by claim 1. We
agree.
The Examiner relies on Figure 4 of Hae for teaching this subject
matter. The Examiner specifically relies on the teaching in Hae at block 724
of updating the coefficient of friction only when the vehicle is in nonlinear
operation. However, this is not a teaching of updating the coefficient of
friction if there has not been a previous vehicle control event within a
predetermined timeframe as required by claim 1. The Examiner also relies
on the teaching in Hae at blocks 722 and 718 of changing the coefficient of
adhesion to a new value from a default value when the nonlinear operation
criteria is met and returning the coefficient of adhesion to the default value
when the criteria for linear operation is met. First, we agree with the
Appellants that a coefficient of adhesion is different from a coefficient of
friction. We note that even the Examiner admits that they are not the same
thing (Ans. 4). However, the Examiner argues that the coefficient of friction
is related to the coefficient of adhesion. We fail to understand, and the
3
Appeal2013-004790
Application 12/841, 7 69
Examiner has not explained, why the fact that a coefficient of friction is
related to a coefficient of adhesion is relevant to the obviousness of the
claims. The claims recite a coefficient of friction not a coefficient of
adhesion. In addition, even had the Examiner established that the coefficient
of friction is so related to the coefficient of adhesion as to have a bearing of
the question of obviousness, the Examiner has failed to establish that the
coefficient of adhesion is determined if a previous vehicle control event has
not occurred as required by claim 1. Rather, the determination of the
coefficient of adhesion is based on whether criteria for a linear or nonlinear
operation have been met.
In addition, as the claim recites that the coefficient of friction is
determined based on the level of braking at the time the vehicle substantially
lost traction with respect to the surface and that the current coefficient of
friction is stored and retrieved if a previous vehicle control event has
occurred within a predetermined timeframe, we disagree with the Examiner
that the coefficient of friction language of claim 1 is nonfunctional
descriptive material.
All of the rejections of all of the claims are based on the Examiner's
findings regarding Hae we have found in error. In view of the foregoing, we
will not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claim 1 and claims 2, 3, and 5-
8 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4