INVENTUS ENGINEERING GMBHDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 24, 20202020001934 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/158,061 05/18/2016 MARKUS MAYER XBSB-2261P72 2237 24131 7590 12/24/2020 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP P O BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGA X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2020 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): docket@patentusa.com office@patentusa.com vrahimis@patentusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte MARKUS MAYER, STEFAN BATTLOGG, GERNOT ELSENSOHN, and JUERGEN POESEL __________ Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 Technology Center 3600 __________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 26–50. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM, DESIGNATING A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. 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 Inventus Engineering GmbH. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a damper device for controlling damping of movement between two connecting units via magneto-rheological fluid. Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 26. A damper device, comprising: two connecting units which can move relative to one another; at least one controllable damper with a magneto- rheological fluid disposed for damping relative movements of said two connecting units, said damper having at least one first damper chamber and at least one damping valve with at least one damping duct; a magnetic field generating device assigned [to] said at least one damping valve and configured to generate and control a magnetic field in said at least one damping duct of said damping valve; said magneto-rheological fluid being disposed in said at least one damping duct; a control device and a memory device; a sensor device disposed for acquiring measurement data sets relating at least to a relative movement of said connecting units with respect to one another; and a filter device connected to said sensor device for pre- processing the measurement data sets, wherein at least one data set, derived from a measurement data set acquired with said sensor device during the relative movement of said connecting units, is stored in said memory device; an analysis device configured to analyze at least one stored data set and to determine a filter parameter set as a function of the result of the analysis; and wherein said control device is configured to derive a control data set from the measurement data set with the filter parameter set, and said control device controlling the damper device with the control data set. Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Sims US 2011/0127706 A1 June 2, 2011 Franklin US 5,971,116 Oct. 26, 1999 REJECTION Claims 26–50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sims and Franklin. Final Act. 3. OPINION Claim 26 is representative of claims 26–50 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2018). See Appeal Br. 5–8. The Examiner finds that Sims discloses a damper device having most of the limitations of claim 26, particularly: (a) two connecting units (shown in Figs. 1 and 6A2); (b) at least one controllable damper (damper 10) with a magneto- rheological fluid in a damping duct for damping movements of the two connecting units; (c) a magnetic field generating device (coil 34) configured to generate and control a magnetic field in the damping duct; (d) a control device and a memory device (control system 52 with microcontroller 58); 2 In the Final Office Action, “Fig.SA” is recited. Final Act. 3. We understand the citation to be directed to Fig. 6A, which is recited on page 2 of the Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 24, 2017. Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 4 (e) a sensor device (sensor 62) for acquiring measurement data sets relating to movement of the connecting units with respect to one another, wherein at least one data set, derived from a measurement data set is stored in the memory device; (f) a filter device (signal conditioning apparatus 60) connected to the sensor device for pre-processing the measurement data sets; and (g) an analysis device configured to analyze the stored data set and determine a filter parameter set as a function of the result of the analysis. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Sims ¶¶ 65–79, 81, 84–87; Figs. 1, 4, 6A). Under the “Response to Arguments” section of the Final Office Action, the Examiner explains that Sims’s Figure 4 shows “a microcontroller 58 receiving data from sensor 62 which measures variable data and produces signal data that [is] conditioned by signal conditioning 60 (see at least [0084])” in which “the variable data [is a] data [set] depending on the predetermined setting of the control logic and/or setting input by the user (see at least [0085]).” Final Act. 2. The Examiner further explains that [t]he person skilled in the art would know the microcontroller is a small computer on a single integrated circuit containing a processor core, memory, and programmable [] [sic]. Thus, the measured data sets from sensor 62 are sent to signal conditioning 60 and passed to the microcontroller 58 which meets the scope of “data set, derived from a measurement data set acquired with said sensor device . . ., is stored in said memory device”. The microcontroller 58 analy[z]es the signal produced by sensor 62 in combination with [a] time variable to indicate [] the type of terrain that is being traversed by [a] bicycle (see at least [0085]– [0087]) which meets the scope of “analyzing stored data to determine a filter parameter”. Final Act. 2–3. Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 5 According to the Examiner, Sims does not disclose that the control device is configured to derive a control data set from the measurement data set with the filter parameter set, and that the control device controls the damper device with the control data set. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Franklin for this missing limitation. Final Act. 5 (citing Franklin 7:30– 8:30). Appellant contends that Sims “fails to disclose an analysis device which is configured to analyze at least one stored data set and to determine a filter parameter set as a function of the result of the analysis” because its “sensor-measured data is not used to determine a filter parameter,” but rather, Sims only “outputs the signal which controls the switch/damper.” Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that “Sims does not determine a parameter set via the microcontroller to be combined with a measurement data set via a control device to control the damper.” Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, “[n]either the time variable nor the sensor input is a stored data set” and that “Sims does not disclose a control device being configured to derive a control data set from a measurement data set with a filter parameter set, and the control device controlling the damper device with the control data set” as required for claim 26. Appeal Br. 6–7. “[Sims’s] microcontroller 58 analyzes the conditioned signal in combination with a time variable to output a signal based on the input signal, control logic and user settings.” Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner responds that Sims’s “sensor 62 measures a variable (acceleration, velocity or displacement, etc.) and produces a signal which is converted [from] analog[] signal to a digital signal” and Sims discloses that “a history of events is produced so the microcontroller 58 can perform operations based on the amount of time that has elapsed since a particular Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 6 event took place.” Ans. 3 (citing Sims ¶ 87). The Examiner points out that “Sim[s] discloses that the microcontroller 58 outputs signal to control the switch of damper device 64.” Ans. 4 (citing Sims ¶¶ 86–87). The Examiner reiterates that Franklin is relied on for teaching the last limitation of claim 26, namely, the “control device [being] configured to derive a control data set from the measurement data set with the filter parameter set, and said control device controlling the damper device with the control data set.” Ans. 4–5 (citing Franklin 8:12–30). Claim 26 does not indicate, and Appellant does not explain, what constitutes a “filter parameter set,” other than the “filter parameter set” being “a function of the result of [an] analysis” and being used to derive a control data set that is used to control the damper device. We additionally note that the Examiner does not explain precisely what the Examiner regards as being filtered in Sims and Franklin. See Final Act. 4, 5. Further, we are unable to discern from the Examiner’s comments how or why the Examiner regards Sims’s time variable as the recited “filter parameter set” of claim 26. Final Act. 3. Appellant, however, also does not explain what is being filtered or how the filter parameter set is obtained and used to control the damper, for claim 26. See Specification generally. For clarity, Appellant’s Specification discloses “[a] filter device is provided for pre-processing the measurement data sets.” Spec. 5:17–18; emphasis added. Appellant’s measurement data set (not filter parameter set) “comprises at least one speed signal and, in particular, at least one acceleration signal for the relative movement of the connecting units with respect to one another,” of the damper device. Spec. 5:22–26; emphasis added. The Specification further discloses that Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 7 [t]he control device is preferably designed to select a filter parameter set with relatively strong filtering in the case of speed signals and acceleration signals which are low in absolute value, and to select a filter parameter set with less filtering in the case of speed signals or acceleration signals which are relatively high in absolute value. Spec. 5:30–6:3; emphasis added. “[I]n the case of a less intensive relative movement of the connecting units with respect to one another, filtering is carried out more intensively. This means stronger denoising is carried out on the measurement data or the value or the values of a measurement data set.” Spec. 7:26–31; emphases added. The Specification indicates that “[a] filter parameter set can preferably be selected as a function of the at least one stored data set.” Spec. 11:11–12. In order to differentiate whether relatively strong or relatively weak filtering is carried out, it is possible to provide threshold values or a limiting value set. The values of the measurement data set can contain travel values, acceleration values and/or speed values. Spec. 16:20–23; emphasis added. The Specification again explains that “[t]he term ‘stronger’ filtering is understood here to mean more intensive filtering. This means that more intensive denoising is carried out on more strongly filtered measurement data.” Spec. 17:6–9. Summarizing our observations above, Appellant’s Specification discusses a measurement data set, and denoising of the measurement data, but Appellant’s Specification does not appear to define or detail what a “filter parameter set” is nor how the filter parameter set is specifically derived. Following the disclosures reiterated above, the Specification, however, indicates only that the following can relate to “filtering” or the “filter device”: pre-processing the measurement data sets; speed signal or Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 8 acceleration signal relative to the movement of the connecting units; filtering can be strong or weak, and; threshold values can determine the degree of filtering, among other things. We note, however, that our review court has instructed us that “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, Sims’s disclosures, as explained below, have commonalities with the disclosures from Appellant’s Specification, such that Sims can be regarded as disclosing a “filtered parameter set” to the same extent that is used to control a damper, as required for claim 26. A close review of Sims reveals that there are similarities between its data processing and what is described above in regard to “filtering” in Appellant’s Specification, which in some respect, relates to a “filter parameter set.” For example, Sims discloses that: (1) control of the level of damping is based on “dynamic quantity as a function of time” that satisfies “a threshold value” (Sims ¶¶ 28–29; see also id. at ¶ 98 disclosing “dynamic quantity alone would not suffice to accurately determine the type of terrain being traversed” and ¶¶ 105, 108); (2) the “threshold value is preferably a function of a second dynamic quantity which is preferably a function of the level of damping. This will allow the threshold by which a ‘bump’ is defined to be automatically adjusted depending on the level of damping” (Sims ¶ 31; see also id. at ¶ 98 disclosing “the control logic of FIG. 5B can effectively provide high levels of damping on smooth terrain and low levels of damping on rough terrain”);3 (3) preferably, the “dynamic quantity is a function of 3 Figures 5A–B shows that control of the damper via “CURRENT OFF” or “CURRENT ON” (boxes 80, 82) relies on whether the A (acceleration) is greater than Acrit (acceleration threshold) (boxes 72, 206, 304). Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 9 acceleration” (Sims ¶ 35; see also id. at ¶ 104); and (4) “alteration of parameters relevant to [a] switch protocol” may be made in which “[a]djustment of parameters is a desirable property as it allows the user to adjust the system to their specific rider preference” (Sims ¶ 83). Thus, similar to Appellant’s damper device, Sims’s device also pre- processes measurement data such as acceleration of the connecting units with respect to one another, Sims’s control of the damper device is also dependent on a sensed acceleration being above or below a threshold value, and Sims also uses parameters to adjust the damper device. More particularly, Sims can be regarded as filtering data in much the same manner as described in Appellant’s Specification in that Sims’s acceleration data, a dynamic quantity (item 3 above) is used to determine a threshold value (items 1 and 2), which in turn, is used (in combination with time and (in the Figure 5B embodiment) bump count) to determine whether to take action in response to, or ignore, the sensed acceleration resulting from a bump (items 1 and 4). This amounts to “filter[ing]” an acceleration data signal based on values being below the set threshold. The threshold value can change because it is a function of a second dynamic quality, which is a function of the level of damping (item 2). Thus, Sims is reasonably regarded as disclosing a “filter parameter set” (the set4 of possible threshold values for the acceleration) using pre-processing of measurement data sets 4 Sims discloses a “dynamic quantity” that satisfies a threshold value (in item 1 above) and “the threshold value is preferably a function of a second dynamic quantity” (in item 2 above). As the quantity is dynamic and a second quantity is also used to determine a threshold value, we regard Sims as disclosing more than one threshold value, i.e., a set of threshold values. Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 10 (acceleration data), in which the filter parameter set can be similarly categorized by Appellant as “strong” or “more intensively,” as discussed above (see Spec. 5:30–6:3, 7:26–31, 17:6–9), by virtue of a threshold value that can change (item 2). To the extent that Appellant is arguing Sims does not disclose a filtered parameter set that is “stored,” we note the following. In the Answer, the Examiner points out that Sims’s discloses a history of events is provided to the microcontroller. Ans. 11 (citing Sims ¶ 87). Sims discloses “by combining the signal produced by the sensor 62 with a time variable, the overall combined signal is indicative of the terrain that [is] being traversed by the bicycle.” Sims. ¶ 87. As noted above, Sims uses a threshold value along with its aim to “accurately determine the type of terrain being traversed” (see item 1 above, Sims ¶ 98). In other words, Sims’s aim is also to predict the type of terrain that will be traversed to control its damper. To do this, Sims necessarily uses stored data, which includes threshold values (i.e., “filtered parameter sets”) as discussed above. Sims states that “dynamic quantity alone would not suffice” (Sims ¶ 98), which is indicative that static data, or stored data, is used. As such, Sims can be regarded as using a filtered parameter set that is “stored,” as required for claim 26. As discussed above, Sims is reasonably regarded as providing a “filter parameter set” that is derived from a “measurement data set.” In addition, we explained above that Sims discloses using such data to control its damper device. Thus, Sims can be regarded as having a “control device [that] is configured to derive a control data set from the measurement data set with the filter parameter set, and said control device controlling the damper device with the control data set,” as recited in claim 26. Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 11 In view of the foregoing discussion, we agree with the Examiner’s ultimate decision to reject claims 26–50 based on Sims in view of Franklin. As we have supplemented the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, we designate this opinion as including a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) so as to afford Appellant the procedural options for response associated therewith. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 16–50 is affirmed. We designate this affirmance as including a new ground of rejection. FINALITY OF DECISION This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides: When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the Appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart. Appeal 2020-001934 Application 15/158,061 12 (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01. 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). DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 26–50 103 Sims, Franklin 26–50 AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation