Ex Parte Brewer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 26, 2012

11246598 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL EDWARD BREWER and TODD ALLEN BROWN ____________ Appeal 2010-006509 Application 11/246,598 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEN B. BARRETT, and EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael Edward Brewer and Todd Allen Brown (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 26, 28, and 33-35, the only claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-006509 Application 11/246,598 2 THE INVENTION The Appellants’ invention is directed to a dynamic control system and a method for controlling a hydraulic system. Independent claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative: 26. A dynamic control system comprising: a plurality of sensors generating a dynamic control signal; a brake system comprising a fluid line coupled to a brake bleed mechanism and adapted to contain brake fluid, said brake system further comprising a switchable valve coupled to said fluid line and comprising a small orifice and an adjacent large orifice, said switchable valve adapted to switch to said small orifice in response to a high pressure difference across said valve, said switchable valve further adapted to switch to said large orifice in response to a low pressure difference across said valve, wherein said switchable valve moves laterally; and a controller controlling said brake system in response to said dynamic control signal, said controller generating a pressure build and a pressure bleed at a beginning of said pressure build thereby relieving pressure on an upstream side of said switchable valve through said first brake bleed mechanism, whereby said switchable valve switches to said large orifice thereby allowing maximum fluid flow through said switchable valve. THE REJECTION The Examiner has rejected claims 26, 28, and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art Appeal 2010-006509 Application 11/246,598 3 (hereinafter “AAPA”) in view of Sprott (US 4,294,113, issued Oct. 13, 1981). ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 26 and 35, the Examiner maintains that the AAPA brake system discloses all limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a brake bleed mechanism “bleeding upstream of the valve.” Ans. 3. The Examiner cited to the Sprott patent as teaching a high pressure surge protection system with a bleed mechanism bleeding upstream of a valve, and concluded that it would have been obvious to modify the AAPA system “in order to protect sensitive equipment downstream.” Ans. 3-4. The Appellants counter that “[t]here is no teaching to motivate one skilled in the art to modify the AAPA with Sprott to facilitate valve switching as claimed.” App. Br. 5. The Examiner has not provided a sufficient reason with a rational underpinning to combine Sprott’s upstream bleed mechanism with the AAPA brake system. The AAPA system is a conventional automobile braking and rollover prevention system that includes “tire sensors and electronic switching circuits for detection and monitoring of the rotational behavior of the tires and for the generation of electric brake pressure control signals for use in slip and rollover control,” but does not describe any sensitive equipment that is exposed to the fluid in the AAPA brake system, and particularly not downstream of the valve having the switchable orifice size. Spec., p. 2, paras. [0007], [0008]; Fig. 1 1 . Sprott teaches a high 1 Appellants’ Figure 1 illustrates “typical hydraulic components of a brake system 21”, with the addition of a bleed mechanism 22 and bleed mechanism control valve 31. Spec., p. 6, para. [0024]. There is no Appeal 2010-006509 Application 11/246,598 4 pressure surge protection system that aids in preventing “severe damage on sensitive instruments, such as flowmeters, transducers and the like.” Sprott, col. 1, ll. 38-40. Given that the Examiner has not pointed to, and we fail to see any, evidence establishing the existence of instruments or components downstream in the hydraulic circuit in the AAPA brake system that are especially sensitive to pressure surges, the Examiner’s stated reason to modify the AAPA system, i.e., “in order to protect sensitive equipment downstream,” lacks any rational underpinnings. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 26 and 35, and of claims 28 and 33-34 depending from claim 26, as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Sprott is not sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of claims 26, 28, and 33-35 would have been obvious over AAPA in view of Sprott. DECISION The rejection of claims 26, 28, and 33-35 is reversed. REVERSED JRG indication that any of the “typical hydraulic components” are sensitive instruments or components.