Ex Parte ZAGORSKI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201612841769 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation