Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

15499306 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/499,306 04/27/2017 Muhammad Adeel Awan 83796848 5597
117396 7590 05/20/2020
FGTL/Burgess Law Office, PLLC
P.O. Box 214320
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320
EXAMINER
TO, TUAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUHAMMAD ADEEL AWAN,
FRANK PETER ENGELS,
MOHSEN LAKEEHAL-AYAT, and
UWE HOFFMAN

Appeal 2019-006312
Application 15/499,306
Technology Center 3600

Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006312
Application 15/499,306

2
According to Appellant, “[t]he invention relates to a system and
method for controlling a vehicle steering system.” Spec. ¶ 3. Below, we
reproduce independent claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A vehicle steering system comprising:
an actuator applying a force to the steering system;
a detection unit obtaining a surface condition of a surface
section located ahead of a vehicle in a direction of vehicle
travel and subsequently driven on by said vehicle; and
a data processing unit connected to and communicating
with the detection unit, said data processing unit generating a
control signal for controlling the actuator based on the detected
surface condition.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–14, 16,2 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Higashira3; and
II. Claim 4, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Higashira and Hartmann.4
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–14, 16,
and 17
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a
detection unit obtaining a surface condition of a surface section located
ahead of a vehicle.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Based on our review, we

2 The Examiner erroneously refers to claim 16 as “claim 18” when
summarizing the rejection. See Answer 4–5.
3 Higashira et al., US 5,908,457, issued June 1, 1999 (“Higashira”).
4 Hartmann et al., US 2015/0371095 A1, published Dec. 24, 2015
(“Hartmann”).
Appeal 2019-006312
Application 15/499,306

3
determine that the Examiner errs in relying on Higashira to disclose the
detection unit, as claimed. See Appeal Br. 5–10; see also Reply Br. 1–3.
In the Final Office Action’s rejection of claim 1, and in the rejection
of claim 1 set forth in the Answer, the Examiner does not identify any
portion of Higashira that discloses a detection unit obtaining a surface
condition of a surface section located ahead of a vehicle. See Final
Action 2–6; see Answer 4–6.
It is in the Final Office Action’s Response to Arguments section
where the Examiner addresses claim 1’s recitation that the detection unit
obtains a surface condition of a surface section located ahead of a vehicle.
There, the Examiner states that “the sensors described in Higashira have the
capability of detecting the surface condition of a section located ahead of the
vehicle.” Final Action 6. This statement is inadequate to support the
rejection, however. For example, this statement does not cite any evidence
and does not otherwise explain how any of Higashira’s sensors have the
capability to detect the surface condition of a section located ahead of the
vehicle, or why it would have been obvious to use any of Higashira’s
sensors as claimed.
In the Answer’s Response to Arguments section, the Examiner
identifies, for the first time, a sensor that the Examiner indicates detects the
surface condition of a section located ahead of the vehicle. Specifically,
according to the Examiner, “at least . . . [Higashira’s] sensor 7d . . . detect[s]
the unevenness of road surface on which the vehicle is running, which
includes the surface section under the vehicle as the vehicle drives on, and
the surface section located ahead.” Answer 9; see also id. at 12 (“It is quite
understood, the road surface on which the vehicle is running is also a road
Appeal 2019-006312
Application 15/499,306

4
surface located ahead of the vehicle.”). The Examiner particularly relies on
Higashira’s column 7, lines 48–54, as disclosing using sensor 7d to detect
the road surface on which the vehicle is running.
The Examiner’s reliance on Higashira’s description of sensor 7d also
is inadequate to support the rejection, however. First, there is no adequate
basis for the Examiner’s determination that because Higashira teaches that
“sensor 7d . . . detect[s] the unevenness of road surface on which the vehicle
is running,” the detected road surface “includes the surface section under the
vehicle as the vehicle drives on, and the surface section located ahead.”
Answer 9. The Examiner does not cite any evidence, and does not present a
line of reasoning adequate to support this determination. Further, the
identified portion of Higashira does not disclose anything about detecting a
surface ahead of the vehicle. Instead, this portion states only, in relevant
part, that “supersonic wave sensor 7d . . . detect[s] the unevenness of the
road surface by receiving the supersonic waves transmitted towards the road
surface, which are the road surface condition detecting means for detecting
the condition of the road surface on which the automobile is running.”
Higashira col. 7, ll. 47–52 (emphasis added).
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 8 and 12, each of
which includes a recitation similar to that discussed above. Still further, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9,
11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 that depend from the independent claims.
Appeal 2019-006312
Application 15/499,306

5
Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of claim 4, 10, and 15
Claims 4, 10, and 15 depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 12,
respectively. The Examiner does not rely on Hartmann to disclose anything
that would remedy the above-discussed deficiency in the independent
claim’s rejection. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 4, 10, and 15.

CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–17.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–9,
11–14, 16,
17
103 Higashira 1–3, 5–9,
11–14, 16,
17
4, 10, 15 103 Higashira,
Hartmann
4, 10, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–17
REVERSED