GUSSEN, Uwe et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2020

15406176 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 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.
15/406,176 01/13/2017 Uwe GUSSEN 83757694 1530
28395 7590 01/23/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
GORDON, MATHEW FRANKLIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2020 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@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte UWE GUSSEN, CHRISTOPH ARNDT, and
FREDERIC STEFAN

Appeal 2019-004732
Application 15/406,176
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-004732
Application 15/406,176

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, and 7–19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL
The Appellant’s invention concerns the remote-controlled operation
of a motor vehicle tailgate. Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, the invention
relates to the “improved protection against the inadvertently triggered
opening of a tailgate of a motor vehicle.” Id. ¶ 10.
Claims 1, 16, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for remote-controlled operation of a tailgate of
a motor vehicle comprising:
detecting environmental data using a sensor arrangement
of the motor vehicle;
opening the tailgate in response to receiving a wireless
opening signal, via a control apparatus;
checking for a presence of at least one closure condition
including a timeout of a timer for the tailgate during the opening,
the at least one closure condition being independent of a wireless
closing signal and based on the environmental data detected by
the sensor arrangement;
inhibiting opening the tailgate if an inhibition condition
exists indicating the timeout; and
closing the tailgate in response to the at least one closure
condition being present.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004732
Application 15/406,176

3

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Kim US 9,830,754 B2 Nov. 28, 2017
Ablabutyan US 2010/0213732 A1 Aug. 26, 2010
Lim et al. (“Lim”) US 2014/0022052 A1 Jan. 23, 2014
Lee US 2014/0156112 A1 June 5, 2014
Ihlenburg et al.
(“Ihlenburg”)
US 2014/0207344 A1 July 24, 2014
Baumann et al.
(“Baumann”)
US 2015/0361711 A1 Dec. 17, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 1–3, 13, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ihlenburg, Baumann, and Lim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Ihlenburg, Baumann, Lim, and Ablabutyan.
Claims 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Ihlenburg, Baumann, Lim, and Lee.
Claims 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ihlenburg, Baumann, Lim, and Kim.

ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
Claim 19 recites, in-part, “a control apparatus configured to, in
response to receiving a wireless opening signal, check for an inhibition
condition indicating a timer timeout a tailgate and inhibit the opening of the
tailgate if the inhibition condition exists,” Appeal Br., Claims App’x 3
(emphasis added). The Examiner determines that “‘indicating a timer
Appeal 2019-004732
Application 15/406,176

4

timeout a tailgate’ renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the
relationship is between the timer timeout and the tailgate.” Final Act. 3.
The Appellant does not address this ground of rejection in the Appeal Brief.2
We summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).

Obviousness
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Ihlenburg,
Baumann, and Lim for the rejection of independent claim 1. Final Act. 3–4.
The Examiner finds Ihlenburg teaches, among other things, the steps of
“detecting environmental data using a sensor arrangement of the motor
vehicle,” and “closing the tailgate in response to the at least one closure
condition being present.” Id. (citing Ihlenburg ¶¶ 38–48). However, the
Examiner also finds that “Ihlenburg is not explicit on a timeout of a timer.”
Id. at 4. To remedy this deficiency the Examiner turns to Baumann and
finds that it teaches “at least one closure condition is based on a timeout of a
timer.” Id. (citing Baumann ¶¶ 42–50). The Examiner determines:
It would have been obvious . . . to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of B[a]umann
with the system disclosed by Ihlenburg in order to assure a
secure, yet convenient usage of an electric positioning device
for automatically opening and closing a vehicle door that can be
controlled by a plurality of command units.
Id. (citing Baumann ¶ 7).

2 The Appellant filed an amendment to claim 19 attempting to overcome the
rejection. Amendment 5–6 (filed Aug. 22, 2018). The Examiner did not
enter the amendment. Advisory Act. (mailed Oct. 1, 2018).
Appeal 2019-004732
Application 15/406,176

5

The Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined the teachings of Ihlenburg and Baumann as proffered by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 4–5. The Appellant contends:
If a timeout of a timer for the tailgate was incorporated into the
closure condition, the lift gate of Ihlenburg would continue to
move towards the object or structure until the timeout was
reached, and the likelihood of impact or collision with an object
would be increased, and/or a desired gap would be unable to be
maintained via a dynamic control as taught by Ihlenburg.
Id. (citing Ihlenburg ¶¶ 39–40).
In response, the Examiner effectively reiterates the teachings of
Ihlenburg and Baumann particular to the tailgate’s closure conditions for the
rejection of claim 1. See Ans. 3. Although the Examiner determines that the
combined teachings of Ihlenburg and Baumann meet the claimed at least one
closure condition, which includes “a timeout of a timer for the tailgate
during the opening [of the tailgate,]” the Examiner fails to provide an
explanation of how the teachings of the Ihlenburg and Baumann are relied
upon to meet the claimed at least one closure condition. Stated differently,
the Examiner fails to adequately explain on the record how Baumann’s use
of a timeout of a timer would be used along with the features of Ihlenburg’s
hatch collision avoidance system during the opening of the tailgate.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s proffered modification of Ihlenburg in view of
Baumann lacks sufficient explanation. Therefore, the Appellant’s argument
persuades us that the Examiner’s rejection is inadequately supported.
Further, we note that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1
also relies on Lim’s teachings. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner’s
reliance on Lim’s teachings fails to remedy the deficiency in the Examiner’s
rejection as discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-004732
Application 15/406,176

6

rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 as
unpatentable over Ihlenburg, Baumann, and Lim.
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 16 and 19 includes
the same deficiency as the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 5–7. Thus,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 19 as
unpatentable over Ihlenburg, Baumann, and Lim.
Lastly, we note that the Examiner fails to rely on the teachings of
Ablabutyan, Lee, and Kim in any manner that would remedy the deficiency
in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 16. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 5, 7–10, 11, 12, 15,
17, and 18.

CONCLUSION
We SUMMARILY AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5, and
7–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19 112 Indefinite 19

1–3, 13, 14,
16, 19
103 Ihlenburg, Baumann,
Lim
1–3, 13, 14,
16, 19
5 103 Ihlenburg, Baumann,
Lim, Ablabutyan
5
7–10 103 Ihlenburg, Baumann,
Lim, Lee
7–10
11, 12, 15,
17, 18
103 Ihlenburg, Baumann,
Lim, Kim
11, 12, 15,
17, 18
Appeal 2019-004732
Application 15/406,176

7

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
19 1–3, 5, 7–18

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART