15151628 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2020)

Thomas Svensson

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 3, 2020

15151628 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 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. 15/151,628 05/11/2016 Thomas Svensson 83641503 9702 117396 7590 02/03/2020 FGTL/Burgess Law Office, PLLC P.O. Box 214320 Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, THOMAS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/03/2020 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 THOMAS SVENSSON Appeal 2018-008829 Application 15/151,628 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRETT C. MARTIN, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, 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 1–19. 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 2018-008829 Application 15/151,628 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed “to a method for limiting brake pressure to a predetermined pressure value.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of operating a vehicle brake system comprising: generating a hydraulic brake pressure; providing a plurality of brake cylinders, each cylinder associated with a wheel; obtaining an estimated brake pressure for each wheel resulting in wheel lock; determining a pressure limit based on a maximum of the estimated brake pressure for each wheel; and continuously maintaining the hydraulic brake pressure at a constant margin above the pressure limit. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date O’Dea US 6,964,460 B2 Nov. 15, 2005 Bohn US 2013/0080016 A1 Mar. 28, 2013 REJECTIONS Claims 9–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bohn. Final Act. 2. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Dea. Final Act. 3. Claims 1–8, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bohn and O’Dea. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2018-008829 Application 15/151,628 3 OPINION Anticipation Bohn Claim 9 The Examiner rejects claim 9 as anticipated by Bohn. The Examiner maintains the rejection over Bohn by asserting that the term “always” is clouded by certain statements in the Specification and thus does not actually require pressure “always” to be maintained above the limit, that is, at all times, because “during break operations hydraulic pressure values change rapidly . . . [that] are still interpreted as being within the definition of ‘always’.”. , Ans. 3. The Examiner refers to paragraph 19 of the Specification, which states “[i]f the brake pressure exceeds the pressure limit value, in step 20, the brake pressure is reduced to the brake pressure limit value.” Id. It is undisputed that Bohn teaches a time period 117 where the brake pressure is reduced to zero and then is increased back to the pressure limit value. See Bohn, Fig. 2. The only issue here is whether the Specification allows such a reduction to zero to fall within a claim limitation requiring the pressure to “always” be above the limit value. The Examiner is reading the cited portion of paragraph 19 out of context. The Specification make clear in paragraphs 17 and 18 that the limit value includes a margin of 10 to 25 bar above the highest brake pressure required at each wheel. When, in paragraph 19, the Specification discusses reducing the pressure to the brake pressure limit value, the resulting brake pressure still includes the margin above the highest brake pressure required at each wheel. So, even when if the brake pressure is reduced, because it is maintained above what is necessary at each wheel due to the included margin, the brake pressure “always exceeds the estimated brake pressure Appeal 2018-008829 Application 15/151,628 4 limit of each wheel,” as recited by claim 9. Given that Bohn clearly reduces pressure to zero, it cannot teach “always” maintaining pressure above the limit value. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–17. O’Dea Claim 18 Regarding claim 18, the Examiner asserts that “a maximum brake pressure is estimated when a first slip threshold is exceeded.” Ans. 5. As Appellant points out, however, O’Dea “does not disclose estimating a brake pressure for each wheel.” Reply Br. 3. Rather, O’Dea “discloses adjusting the brake pressure based in part on the slip status of each respective wheel, not a pressure limit.” Reply Br. 4. In other words, although O’Dea adjusts pressure, it never measures a maximum of the estimated brake pressure for each wheel and only adjusts pressure based on slip. O’Dea is, thus, concerned only with an added pressure not with any estimate of the level of pressure before additional pressure is added. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18. Obviousness As noted above with regard to claim 9, Bohn discloses a time interval 117 where the pressure subsides to zero. See Bohn, Fig. 2. In contrast, claim 1 requires “continuously maintaining brake pressure at a constant margin above the pressure limit.” See Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). As such, Bohn is deficient for at least this limitation. As to O’Dea, as noted above with regard to claim 18, O’Dea does not measure a pressure limit at all, but merely adjusts pressure based on measured slip. As such, O’Dea cannot “continuously” maintain pressure at a margin above a level that it does not measure in the first place. Accordingly, Appeal 2018-008829 Application 15/151,628 5 because this limitation of continuously maintaining pressure at a margin above the pressure limit is found in neither Bohn nor O’Dea, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection. CONCLUSION DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 9–17 102 Bohn 9–17 18 102 O’Dea 18 1–8, 18, 19 103 Bohn and O’Dea 1–8, 18, 19 Overall Outcome: 1–19 1–19 REVERSED