WABCO GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2021

2020004594 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 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.
15/312,834 11/21/2016 Uwe Lentz 91592-046(2013P00029WOUS) 5223
168384 7590 03/25/2021
Dickinson Wright PLLC - Ann Arbor
350 S. Main Street
Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
EXAMINER
WILTEY, NICHOLAS K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2021 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):
DWPatents@dickinson-wright.com
tgarrett@dickinsonwright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UWE LENTZ
Appeal 2020-004594
Application 15/312,834
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, 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 2–8. See Final Act. 1. 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 WABCO GmbH.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004594
Application 15/312,834

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for controlling the traction
of a pneumatically sprung vehicle and air suspension system for carrying out
the method. Claims 2 and 3 are independent. Claim 2, reproduced below
with certain limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
2. A method for traction regulation in a vehicle (1) with
pneumatic suspension, which vehicle has at least one front
steering axle (A), at least one rear drive axle (TA) and a trailing
axle (SA) in front of or behind the drive axle (TA), by way of an
electronic or regulated air suspension system (36), having at least
the steps:
proceeding from a regulation mode “pressure ratio
regulation”, in which a parameterized ratio of air pressures in
supporting bellows (2, 4) of the at least one drive axle (TA) in
relation to air pressures in supporting bellows (3, 5) of the trailing
axle (SA) is maintained, continuously automatically checking
whether relieving the trailing axle (SA) of load is possible
without thereby overloading the drive axle (TA),
upon automatically determining that relieving the trailing
axle (SA) of load in this way is possible, automatically switching
to a regulation mode “optimum traction”, in which the pressure
in the supporting bellows (2, 4) of the at least one drive axle (TA)
is increased and the pressure in the supporting bellows (3, 5) of
the trailing axle (SA) is decreased in order to thereby effect a
load shift to the at least one drive axle (TA) by relieving the
trailing axle (SA) of load, without exceeding a maximum
admissible axle load of the at least one drive axle (TA),
relieving the trailing axle (SA) of load to a point of
residual pressure maintenance, and thereby shifting load to the
drive axle (TA) up to the maximum admissible axle load thereof,
continuously checking the axle load of the drive axle (TA),
and
switching back to the regulation mode “pressure ratio
regulation”, with simultaneous increase of load on the trailing
axle (SA) and relief of the drive axle (TA) of load upon detecting
Appeal 2020-004594
Application 15/312,834

3
an exceedance of the maximum admissible axle load at the drive
axle (TA) is detected.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Heer US 2005/0017474 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Stender US 2007/0170679 A1 July 26, 2007
Frank US 2013/0257007 A1 Oct. 3, 2013
Gerami-Manesch2 DE 10 2010 053 264.9 June 6, 2012
REJECTIONS
I. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Gerami-Manesch.
II. Claims 3 and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gerami-Manesch, Frank, and Stender.
III. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gerami-Manesch, Frank, Stender, and Heer.
OPINION
Rejection I, Obviousness–Gerami-Manesch
The Examiner finds that Gerami-Manesch discloses each of the steps
recited in claim 2, including the step of “continuously automatically
checking” whether it is possible to relieve the trailing axle of load without
overloading the drive axle. Final Act. 4–5. However, the Examiner finds
Gerami-Manesch does not explicitly disclose shifting the drive load to the
maximum admissible axle load. Id. at 5. The Examiner determines that it

2 Consistent with the Examiner’s usage, we refer to the US equivalent, US
2013/0228991 A1, published on September 5, 2013. See Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2020-004594
Application 15/312,834

4
would have been obvious to load the drive axle to the maximum admissible
load so that the bellow acts at maximum working capacity, which, the
Examiner finds, is consistent with Gerami-Manesch’s disclosure of
operating the drive axle at maximum permissible pressure. Id. (citing
Gerami-Manesch ¶ 4).
Appellant argues that Gerami-Manesch monitors slip of the drive axle
and the trailing axle and transfers the load when slip occurs, but does not
base the determination on whether the load shift is possible. Br. 6. In
particular, Appellant asserts that Gerami-Manesch does not continuously
monitor whether it is possible to relieve the trailing axle, and rather
improves upon the prior-art system by monitoring slip to determine whether
load shift is necessary or desirable based on the observed wheel slip. Br. 7.
The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that the pressure or load on the
respective axle is controlled in Gerami-Manesch as shown in Figures 2a–2c,
which depict the pressure being continuously monitored, and specifically,
“in time period II, the pressure from the trailing axles are decreased
(relieved).” Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, in “Gerami-Manesch it is
possible to relieve the trailing axle when a slip occurs.” Id.
Appellant has the better position. Although we appreciate that
Gerami-Manesch is continuously monitoring and relieves the trailing axle
when a slip occurs, that is not what is required by the claimed method.
Claim 2 recites, “continuously automatically checking whether relieving the
trailing axle (SA) of load is possible without thereby overloading the drive
axle (TA), upon automatically determining that relieving the trailing axle
(SA) of load in this way is possible, automatically switching to a regulation
mode ‘optimum traction.’” Br. 11 (Claims App.). The Specification
Appeal 2020-004594
Application 15/312,834

5
discloses controlling the load of the axles, so that “the legally maximum load
on the rear drive axle of the vehicle is utilized to the greatest possible extent,
but is not exceeded, both in the presence of maximum load and during
empty running.” Spec. ¶ 6. Based on this scheme, the legally maximum
load is on the rear drive axle as much as possible. Specifically, the claimed
method does not wait for slippage, and rather, performs the automatic
switching when it is possible without overloading the drive axle. Gerami-
Manesch, by contrast, discloses the load is increased on the drive axle until a
maximum speed is reached or until a set period of time has elapsed, “so that
a removal of the load from the drive wheels is set once normal driving
conditions have been achieved and an optimized load distribution for driving
with little slippage can be resumed.” Gerami-Manesch ¶ 20. This procedure
is also depicted in Figures 2a–2c of Gerami-Manesch in which those wheels
that exhibit a greater slippage “s” are “temporarily exposed to a greater
load.” Id. ¶ 33 (emphasis added). In particular, Figure 2c of Gerami-
Manesch depicts an increase to maximum load on the drive axle (TA) at
time II upon detection of increased slippage, the maximum load is held for
time III, followed by a decrease to a standard value at time IV. Id. ¶¶ 35–36.
We agree with Appellant that Gerami-Manesch’s load shift is based solely
on the detection of slippage, and that a shift back to a standard value is
performed “when the slip has been reduced, regardless of whether the
maximum load on the drive axle has been reached or whether the load shift
remains possible.” Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, Gerami-
Manesch does not continuously automatically check whether relieving the
trailing axle of load is possible without overloading the drive axle, as
required by claim 2.
Appeal 2020-004594
Application 15/312,834

6
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2 as
unpatentable over Gerami-Manesch.
Rejection II; Obviousness–Gerami-Manesch, Frank, and Stender
Similar to claim 2, independent claim 3 recites, in part,
continuously automatically checking, on the basis of the present
supporting bellows pressures, whether relieving the trailing axle
(SA) of load is possible without thereby overloading the at least
one drive axle (TA), and “upon determining that relieving the
trailing axle (SA) of load is possible without thereby overloading
the at least one drive axle (TA), automatically switching into a
regulation mode “optimum traction.”
Br. 12–13 (Claims App.).
The Examiner makes the same finding that Gerami-Manesch discloses
this limitation. Final Act. 6. For the same reasons discussed above for claim
2, the Examiner does not adequately establish that Gerami-Manesch
discloses this limitation. The Examiner does not rely on the disclosures of
Frank or Stender in any manner that would address this deficiency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3, and claims 6–
8 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Gerami-Manesch, Frank, and
Stender.
Rejection III; Obviousness–Gerami-Manesch, Frank, Stender, and Heer
Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 3. The Examiner does not rely on
the disclosure of Heer in any manner that would address the deficiency of
Gerami-Manesch, Frank, and Stender discussed in Rejection II.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejection III for the same reasons as
Rejection II.
Appeal 2020-004594
Application 15/312,834

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2 103 Gerami-Manesch 2
3, 6–8 103 Gerami-Manesch,
Frank, Stender
3, 6–8
4, 5 103 Gerami-Manesch,
Frank, Stender, Heer
4, 5
Overall
Outcome:
2–8

REVERSED