2020006759 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2021)

Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 2021

2020006759 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2021)

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. 15/750,185 02/03/2018 Frank Baehrle-Miller 2178-1777 7579 10800 7590 05/28/2021 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2021 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 FRANK BAEHRLE-MILLER and HELMUT WOLFF ____________ Appeal 2020-006759 Application 15/750,185 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-006759 Application 15/750,185 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method for verifying the parking brake force in vehicle with a hydraulic vehicle brake and electromechanical brake mechanism (Spec., page 1, lines 14–16). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for verifying a parking brake force in a vehicle, the vehicle including a hydraulic vehicle brake with a brake booster and an electromechanical brake mechanism with an electric brake motor for producing a braking force to displace a brake piston, the method comprising: comparing an actual travel of the brake booster with a reference travel of the brake booster; and producing an error signal in case of a predetermined deviation between the actual travel of the brake booster and the reference travel. THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1–4 and 6–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Berger (US 9,033,427 B2; May 19, 2015) and Gerdes (US 2015/0360666 A1; December 17, 2015). Appeal 2020-006759 Application 15/750,185 3 FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.2 ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for “comparing an actual travel of the brake booster with a reference travel of the brake booster” (Appeal Br. 4). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is shown by Berger at Figure 3 (Boxes S6, S7) and column 6, line 55 to column 7, line 13 (Ans. 3, 4). The Examiner also cites to Gerdes at Figures 1a, and 2 (Boxes S2, S4) as disclosing monitoring travel of a brake booster (Final Act. 4). We agree with the Examiner. The Appellant argues at pages 4 and 5 of the Appeal Brief that Gerdes discloses “a method in which the differential travel between the input rod and the valve body of the brake booster is measured and compared with threshold values” but not does not disclose “measuring the actual travel of the brake booster.” We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2020-006759 Application 15/750,185 4 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). At page 2 of the Appeal Brief, the Appellant cites to Specification at pages 9–12 to support the argued claim limitation. The Specification at pages 9–12 does not limit a definition of the measuring “the actual travel of the brake booster” to exclude any internal components of the brake booster. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider brake booster assemblies typically “fixed” or “secured” in vehicles with the brake booster displacement taking place between internal components in many applications. Turning to the cited prior art, Gerdes at paragraphs 44–46 describes operation at method steps S1 and S2 as it relates to a brake booster. Gerdes at paragraph 44 discloses the brake booster is operated to have a displacement motion imparted to the valve body and a differential travel that is made in reference to the “input rod” and “valve body.” Gerdes at paragraph 45 specifically discloses “direct measurement of the differential travel.” Gerdes, disclosing direct measurement of the brake booster’s “differential travel” between these brake booster components, meets the argued claim limitation of “an actual travel of the brake booster” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Gerdes at paragraph 43 discloses comparing a variable with a comparison variable such as current differential travel and limit differential travel (which serves as a reference value). Thus, Gerdes discloses “comparing an actual travel of the brake booster with a reference travel of the brake booster” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Berger at column 6, line 55 to column 7, line 13 also discloses comparing a brake position to a target positon (reference value) in the combination. The Appellant argues at page 4 of the Appeal Brief that Appeal 2020-006759 Application 15/750,185 5 Berger does not disclose “measuring [an] actual travel of the brake piston” but the claimed limitation is drawn to the “actual travel of the brake booster,” which has been disclosed by Gerdes as discussed above. The Appellant makes additional arguments related to Gerdes not disclosing a method of verifying a parking brake force but this is not limitation to the claim. Here, the argued claim limitation has been shown in the cited prior art and, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellant has provided the same arguments for claims 2–4 and 6–13, and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSION OF LAW We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–4 and 6–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Berger and Gerdes. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–13 103 Berger, Gerdes 1–4, 6–13 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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