Ex Parte Baehrle-Miller et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 26, 2019

14880525 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/880,525 10/12/2015 10800 7590 06/26/2019 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Frank Baehrle-Miller 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2178-1455 6986 EXAMINER SAHNI, VISHAL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2019 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, ULLRICH SUSSEK, SIMON FLEISCHER, and PETER BLESSING 1 Appeal2019-000648 Application 14/880,525 Technology Center 3600 Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DANIELS. SONG, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-10 in the present application. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 6(b) and 134(a). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Robert Bosch GmbH, which is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") 2. Appeal2019-000648 Application 14/880,525 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a method for operating a parking brake device. Abstract. Representative independent claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A method for operating a parking brake device, the parking brake device including an actuator having an electric motor configured to displace an actuator element between a brake application position and a brake release position, the method comprising: ascertaining a motor input voltage and a motor current as the actuator element is displaced; determining a motor constant of the electric motor and an electrical resistance of the electric motor based on the ascertained motor input voltage and the ascertained motor current; and controlling the electric motor based on the determined motor constant and the determined electrical resistance, wherein the ascertaining of the motor input voltage and the motor current further comprises ascertaining the motor input voltage and the motor current during a switch-on phase of the parking brake device. App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x). Independent claims 9 and 10 are directed to a parking brake device that include limitations substantively similar to that of claim 1. App. Br. 12- 13 (Claims App'x). REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1--4 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Baehrle-Miller et al. (DE 10 2012 205576 Al, pub. Oct. 10, 2 Appeal2019-000648 Application 14/880,525 2013) (citations to corresponding US 2015/0066324 Al, pub. Mar. 5, 2015) ("Baehrle-Miller"). Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects the appealed claims as obvious finding that Baehrle-Miller discloses a parking brake device and method for operating a parking brake device substantially as claimed. Final Act. 3, 4. The Examiner finds that "Baehrle-Miller explicitly discusses ascertaining both 'measured values' ( current and voltage) in all phases except the switch-on phase" of the parking brake device. Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes that in view of Baehrle-Miller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have "measure[ d] the motor input voltage and the motor current during a switch-on phase of the parking brake device," and that it would have been "impractical for the values to be measured in all but the switch-on phase." Final Act. 3 (citing Baehrle-Miller ,r,r 7-9). In support, the Examiner also finds that "Figure 2 shows the current (I) and voltage (U) values in ALL phases of operation, further supporting the notion that these values are actually measured during the switch-on phase." Final Act. 3. The Appellant argues that "Baehrle-Miller discloses throughout the specification that only the motor current is ascertained during the dynamic current change phase, i.e., the switch-on phase." App. Br. 5 ( citing Baehrle- Miller ,r,r 7, 8, 10, 12); see also App. Br. 6 ("There is not a single instance in the specification of Baehrle-Miller where the input motor voltage is ascertained during the switch-on phase."). The Appellant asserts that "[t]hus, Baehrle-Miller discloses measuring only the motor current during 3 Appeal2019-000648 Application 14/880,525 the switch-on phase and does not disclose measuring the motor input voltage during the switch-on phase." App. Br. 5. The Appellant further argues that Figure 2 of Baehrle-Miller likely shows "curves for an 'ideal' clamping operation and not a graph of measured values for a clamping operation." App. Br. 6. In the above regard, the Examiner and the Appellant disagree as to whether paragraph 9 of Baehrle-Miller, stating "it is basically also possible to determine the current and voltage values during another activation phase of the electric brake motor, in particular during the release phase," teaches that voltage can be determined in any phase, or only discloses determination in the release phase in addition to the no-load phase. Baehrle-Miller ,r 9; App. Br. 6; Ans. 7; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner and the Appellant further disagree as to what Figure 2 of Baehrle-Miller shows, and how it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 7; App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4 (quoting Baehrle-Miller ,r 16). We do not find the Appellant's arguments noted above dispositive to the present appeal because these arguments, at best, establish that Baehrle- Miller does not actually disclose measuring voltage at the switch-on phase. The Appellant's arguments do not address the actual rejection, which asserts that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have "measure[ d] the motor input voltage and the motor current during a switch-on phase of the parking brake device," and that it would have been "impractical for the values to be measured in all but the switch-on phase." Final Act. 3. However, the Appellant further argues that "[e]ven if Baehrle-Miller did teach that both the motor current and the motor input voltage are 4 Appeal2019-000648 Application 14/880,525 ascertained during the switch-on phase ... [it] does not disclose or suggest using the motor input voltage from the dynamic current change phase (switch-on phase) in calculating the motor constant." App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2. In that regard, the Appellant argues that "Baehrle-Miller provides no teaching or suggestion as to how to use or what to do with voltage measurements ascertained during the dynamic current change phase" to determine the motor constant as the claims require. Reply Br. 2. states: We find this argument persuasive. Paragraph 11 of Baehrle-Miller Subsequently, the motor constant is calculated under consideration of the total resistance and a second parameter, the first and second parameters being calculated in a recursive algorithm from the instantaneous current values during the dynamic current change phase. Baehrle-Miller ,r 11. 2 Thus, as the Appellant argues, Baehrle-Miller discloses using the current values in determining the motor constant, but does not teach or suggest using voltage values ascertained during the switch-on phase. See App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 5. The Examiner responds that in light of the Baehrle-Miller specification[,] it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to additionally ascertain the motor input voltage during the switch-on phase -- for this "measured value" to be measured during other known 2 Baehrle-Miller also discloses that the total resistance is a sum of the individual resistances of the brake motor and lines to the brake motor, and is "ascertained as a function of no-load current[], no-load voltage[] and a parameter or an auxiliary variable," none of which, based on our understanding, includes the dynamic current change phase (i.e., switch-on phase). Baehrle-Miller ,r 23. 5 Appeal2019-000648 Application 14/880,525 "activation phases" in order to ascertain the motor constant and electrical resistance. Ans. 8. However, neither the Examiner's rejection as set forth in the Final Office Action, nor the response of the Examiner in the Answer, adequately sets forth a reason with rational underpinnings for calculating the motor constant and the electrical resistance of the motor based on the motor input voltage and motor current that is inclusive of the switch-on phase, and neither the rejection nor the Examiner's Answer sets forth evidence or explanation as to the manner in which this can be done. Therefore, because we find the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 to be insufficiently supported, we do not sustain the rejection. Dependent claims 2--4 and 6-8 ultimately depend from independent claim 1, and independent claims 9 and 10 include similar limitations as claim 1. The Appellant relies on the same arguments submitted relative to claim 1 in support of patentability of these claims. App. Br. 9. Therefore, we reverse the rejection as to these claims as well. CONCLUSION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-10 is REVERSED. REVERSED 6