Ex Parte De Luca

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 16, 2017

13774148 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2017)

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. 13/774,148 02/22/2013 Marco De Luca 3081.080US1 7732 21186 7590 06/20/2017 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER WORDEN, THOMAS E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2017 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW @blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARCO DE LUCA1 Appeal 2016-003809 Application 13/774,148 Technology Center 3600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ferrari S.p.A. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-003809 Application 13/774,148 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to a “method to control a high performance road vehicle equipped with a rear spoiler having at least one adjustable aerodynamic profile.” Abstract. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. A method to control a high performance road vehicle equipped with a rear spoiler that has at least one adjustable aerodynamic profile, the method comprising: detecting a trajectory of the road vehicle corresponding to oversteering or understeering when cornering with a control unit; adjusting a setting of the adjustable aerodynamic profile of the rear spoiler with the control unit to a higher angle of incidence in order to increase a downforce generated by the rear spoiler when oversteering is detected when cornering; and adjusting the setting of the adjustable aerodynamic profile of the rear spoiler with the control unit to a lower angle of incidence in order to reduce the downforce created by the rear spoiler when understeering is detected when cornering. The following lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: DRS: The Drag Reduction System Explained, http://www.racecar- engineering.com/articles/fl/drs-the-drag-reduction-system/ (last visited Jan. 27, 2015) (hereinafter “DRS”). HU1CH13posting, http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/34756/tl626363- oversteering-understeering (last visited May 26, 2015) (hereinafter “HU1CH13”). References and Rejections Maxwell Grajkowski Wong US 7,770,962 B1 Aug. 10, 2010 US 2011/0301825 A1 Dec. 8,2011 WO 2010/030158 A1 Mar. 18, 2010 2 Appeal 2016-003809 Application 13/774,148 Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wong, Maxwell, Grajkowski, DRS, and HU1CH13. Non- Final Act. 2—3. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds claim 1 is obvious “based on the primary reference of Wong, ‘which discloses a vehicle with a rear spoiler that can be adjusted in various modes to adjust rear downforce based on sensor inputs,’” as modified by the teachings of Maxwell, Grajkowski, DRS, and HU1CH13. Ans. 2—3. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error because “the cited references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness by failing to disclose or suggest each and every element of the claim and teach away from the proposed combination of cited references” Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Particularly, Appellant contends “Wong only discusses fixing the spoiler in ‘drift mode’ during turning regardless of whether understeering or oversteering occurs,” and “Wong also expressly teaches against adjusting the airfoil to reduce the downforce in cornering situations.” Br. 8—9 (citing Wong 15:11-13). We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with Appellant that Wong teaches “[tjypically, when a vehicle is turning, ... the vehicle will need extra down-force in order to stabilize the vehicle,” calling this increased downforce “critical” to prevent the vehicle from “flying or rolling.” See Wong 15:1—13 (emphasis added); Br. 8. In contrast, claim 1 recites adjusting the spoiler “to reduce the downforce created by the rear spoiler when understeering is detected when cornering” (emphasis added). Further, the Examiner agrees that “several of the cited references expressly 3 Appeal 2016-003809 Application 13/774,148 teach against the concept of reducing downforce because the traditional reaction ... is to increase downforce,” calling the concept “known” but “generally . . . considered unsafe,” although “‘[djrifting’ or ‘controlled skids’ have been shown in Hollywood movies such as ‘Fast and Furious: . . . Tokyo Drift’, and even Nintendo’s ‘power slide’ featured in their ‘Super Mario Kart’ video games.” Ans. 4 (emphasis added). Accordingly, there is no dispute on the record before us that the cited prior art teaches away from the Examiner’s combination. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.”). Accordingly, we are constrained by the record before us to not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 6, 11, and 16, which contain limitations commensurate in scope, and the claims dependent thereof. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed. REVERSED 4