Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2021

2020004555 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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.
15/798,629 10/31/2017 Ulrich Bittner 2179-0415 1085
10800 7590 10/22/2021
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
KRZYSTAN, ALEXANDER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2021 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 ULRICH BITTNER and WILFRIED EICHNER
_____________

Appeal 2020-004555
Application 15/798,629
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–7, 9–11, and 13–20. 2 We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). According to Appellant, the real party in interest
is Robert Bosch GmbH. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the § 103 rejection of claim 7. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-004555
Application 15/798,629

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to an “apparatus for
airborne-sound-based condition monitoring of a device includes at least one
microphone assigned to each component of a plurality of components of the
device that is to be monitored.” (Abstract).

Representative Claims 1 and 6
1. An apparatus for airborne-sound-based condition monitoring of a
hydraulic powertrain of a mobile working machine, comprising:
a plurality of microphones, each microphone in the plurality being
respectively assigned to a different component of a plurality of components
of the hydraulic powertrain that is to be monitored, the plurality of
components including at least a hydraulic pump and a hydraulic motor,
wherein the airborne-sound-based condition is cavitation, insufficient
suction, or wrong or incorrect installation of the plurality of components.

6. The apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein:
at least two of the microphones are arranged approximately along a
beam that originates from the corresponding component of the plurality of
components to which the at least two microphones are assigned.

Appeal Br. 10; Claims App.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
anticipated by Mitchell, US 2006/0014608 A1, published January 19, 2006,
in further view of Thomassin, US 2006/0283190 A1, published December
21, 2006.
Appeal 2020-004555
Application 15/798,629

3
Claims 6, 73, 9, 124, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as anticipated by Mitchell, Thomassin and Breed, US
2012/0296567 A1, published November 22, 2012.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as anticipated by
Mitchell, Thomassin and Park, US 9,658,100 B2, issued May 23, 2017.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as anticipated
by Mitchell, Thomassin, Breed and Johnson, US 2016/0068122 A1,
published March 10, 2016.

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–6, 9–11, and 13–20 as
being obvious?

ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of facts made by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
decision reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer for the specific
reasons discussed below. We note that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut
the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
Appellant contends Thomassin does not teach using microphones with
multiple components. Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant contends:

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the § 103 rejection of claim 7. Ans. 3.

4 We note claim 12 was cancelled by Appellant in an amendment filed on
January 29, 2019.
Appeal 2020-004555
Application 15/798,629

4
Thomassin discloses using a microphone to monitor only one
component of a powertrain, i.e., the engine. There is no disclosure in
Thomassin of using microphones to monitor components other than the
engine, nor is there any disclosure or suggestion in Thomassin of using
microphones to monitor multiple different components of a powertrain.
Appeal Br. 5.

Appellant also contends “Thomassin is not directed to a monitoring
health of components of a hydraulic powertrain.” Appeal Br. 6.

The Examiner determines:
Mitchell discloses in fig. 15, a hydraulic powertrain with multiple
sensors 668,670 respectively assigned to different components 674,
676, and Thomassin teaches that multiple microphones can be
respectively assigned to different regions of an engine (part of a
powertrain). The examiner notes in para. 22 of Thomassin “two or more
microphone may be employed in order to monitor several separate
regions of the engine simultaneously. In this case, the signal processor
receives several input signals, corresponding to the number of
microphones employed, and processes as required to permit the
simultaneous analysis of each signal and independent detection of two
or more engine conditions at once”. Where one skilled in the art would
realize that the respectively assigned sensors in Mitchell could be
supplemented by the microphones where, for example, component 674
of Mitchell would be one region and component 676 of Mitchell would
be another, separate region.
Ans. 3, 4. (emphasis added).
In other words, the Examiner determines Thomassin explicitly teaches
multiple microphones to monitor several regions simultaneously. Id. The
Examiner also relies upon the combination of Mitchell and Thomassin for
monitoring of a plurality of components of the hydraulic powertrain. Id.
We agree with the Examiner because Appellant’s arguments do not
take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have
Appeal 2020-004555
Application 15/798,629

5
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to
rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those
of ordinary skill in the art. (citations omitted)).

We further note that the Examiner has found actual teachings in the
prior art and has provided a rationale for the combination (see Final Act. 3).
Accordingly, the Examiner appropriately combined the teachings of
Mitchell and Thomassin. See Ans. 3–5.
Dependent claim 6 recites, inter alia,
at least two of the microphones are arranged approximately along a
beam that originates from the corresponding component of the
plurality of components to which the at least two microphones are
assigned.
Appeal Br. 10; Claims App.
Appellant contends “there does not appear to be a beam that originates
from component 35 in FIG. 1, nor is there at least two sensors arranged
along a beam in FIG. 1.” Appeal Br. 7, 8.
The Examiner finds, and we agree:
Breed discloses an engine monitoring system including at least one
microphone includes at least two microphones/acoustic sensors 41–43
arranged approximately a long a beam that originates from the
corresponding component of the plurality of components to which the
at least two microphones are assigned (as shown in fig. 1, multiple
sensors, which may be microphones, a rearranged relative to/a long a
sound beam that originates from component 35 to obtain a series of
Appeal 2020-004555
Application 15/798,629

6
numerical values each corresponding to a measured value at a specific
point in time).

Final Act. 5.

For example when component 35 in fig. 1 of Breed produces sound,
soundwaves/beams are radiated outward in all directions. In the case
where the soundwaves/beams reflect off of the surface supporting
sensor 480 there will be a horizontal reflected soundwave/beam that
passes directly through sensors 41 and 43 (or alternatively acoustic
sensors 41 and 47 cited in para. 108 of Breed).

Ans. 5.

In other words, we agree with the Examiner that Breed teaches two
microphones arranged along a sound beam that originates from the
corresponding component of the plurality of components to which the two
microphones are assigned.
On this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we
are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's finding of obviousness
regarding the rejection of independent representative claim 1 and dependent
claim 6.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 1 and the rejection of grouped independent
claims 13 and 15, which recite similar limitations of commensurate scope.
The remaining grouped dependent claims also rejected (and not argued
separately) fall with their respective independent claims 3 and 15. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred with respect to the
Appeal 2020-004555
Application 15/798,629

7
obviousness rejections of claims 1–6, 9–11, and 13–20 over the cited prior
art of record, and we sustain the rejections.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 5,
13, 15
103 Mitchell,
Thomassin
1, 3, 4, 5,
13, 15

6, 9, 14,
16–20
103 Mitchell,
Thomassin, Breed
6, 9, 14, 16–
20

2 103 Mitchell,
Thomassin, Park
2
10, 11 103 Mitchell,
Thomassin, Breed,
Johnson
10, 11
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 9–11,
13–20

FINALITY AND 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)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED