Ex Parte Grossmann et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

14427830 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/427,830 03/12/2015
10800 7590 03/26/2019
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alex Grossmann
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.
2178-1240 6854
EXAMINER
MALHOTRA, SANJEEV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 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 ALEX GROSSMANN, UDO SIEBER,
DANIEL HENNING, and THOMAS KLOTZBUECHER
Appeal 2018-002697
Application 14/427,830
Technology Center 3600
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 sought our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action (Dec. 21, 2016) ("Final Act.") rejecting
claims 1--4, 6-11, and 13. The Examiner's Answer (Nov. 13, 2017)
("Ans.") presents new grounds of rejection, and in the Reply Brief (Jan. 16,
2018) ("Reply Br.") Appellant seeks our review of these rejections. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Robert Bosch GmbH, identified in the Appeal
Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-002697
Application 14/427,830
For the reasons explained below, we reverse.
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to an active gas pedal or
accelerator pedal for a vehicle, which "can give the driver different feedback
by means ofhaptic signals." Spec. 1:13-14. 2 Claims 1, 6, and 11 are
independent. Claim 6, reproduced below with selected limitations
emphasized, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
6. A control system for an active accelerator pedal, the
control system comprising:
the active accelerator pedal including:
a pedal position sensor configured to detect a
position of a pedal lever of the active accelerator pedal and
to convert the position into a pedal position signal;
an actuator configured to output haptic feedback to
the pedal lever;
an actuator controller configured to control the
actuator,
wherein the pedal position sensor is configured to
transmit the pedal position signal to a central engine
controller of the vehicle and to the actuator controller;
and
the central engine controller,
wherein the central engine controller is configured to
receive the pedal position signal from the pedal position sensor
and the central engine controller is further configured to control
drive of the vehicle using the pedal position signal, and
wherein the pedal position sensor includes two sensor
elements which are each connected to the central engine
controller and configured to output the pedal position signal to
the central engine controller, and
2 Citations to the Specification are to page numbers of the original
Specification filed March 12, 2015, but the text includes amendments filed
the same day in a separate paper, where applicable.
2
Appeal 2018-002697
Application 14/427,830
wherein one of the two sensor elements is connected to the
actuator controller and provides the pedal position signal to the
actuator controller.
Rejections
I. Claims 1, 6, and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Noh (US 2011/0260557 Al, published Oct. 27,
2011). Ans. 5-8. 3
II. Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Noh. Final Act. 7. 4
III. Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Noh and Lubbers (US 2010/0179740 Al, published July
15, 2010). Final Act. 7-8.
IV. Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Noh and Pallett (US 5,673,668, issued Oct. 7, 1997).
Final Act. 8-9.
3 Although the Examiner does not expressly withdraw the rejection of
independent claims 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based on Noh,
Fehr (US 2006/0227793 Al, published Oct. 12, 2006), and Keefover
(US 2005/0077893 Al, published Apr. 14, 2005), the Examiner's response
to Appellant's arguments indicating that certain obviousness arguments are
"moot in view of the new rejection under 35 USC 102," e.g., Ans. 9,
indicates the rejection of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) is
withdrawn.
4 Although the Examiner's Answer does not expressly set forth
modifications to the rejections of the dependent claims, we understand the
Examiner to have removed Fehr and Keefover from these rejections for the
same reason the Examiner no longer relies on these references to reject the
independent claims. See Ans. 6-8 (stating that the findings regarding Fehr
and Keefover overlapped findings as to Noh).
3
Appeal 2018-002697
Application 14/427,830
V. Claim 13 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Noh. Final Act. 9--10.
VI. Claim 2 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Noh and Mehta (US 2002/0120385 Al, published Aug.
29, 2002). Final Act. 10-11.
VII. Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Noh and Grider (US 2007/0186884 Al, published Aug.
16, 2007). Final Act. 11-12.
VIII. Claim 4 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Noh and Pallett. Final Act. 12.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1-35 US.C. § 102(b)
Claims 1, 6, 11
The dispositive issue with respect to the rejection of independent
claims 1, 6, and 11 is whether Noh discloses the following limitations
recited in claims 1, 6, and 11: "wherein the pedal position sensor includes
two sensor elements which are each connected to the central engine
controller and configured to output the pedal position signal to the central
engine controller" (the "two sensor elements limitations").
Appellant argues the Examiner relies on sensors 19 and 35 of Noh as
the two sensor elements, and contends there is no disclosure in Noh that both
sensors are connected to a central engine controller and output position
signals to a central engine controller. Reply Br. 5. Although Appellant
acknowledges that Noh's sensor 19 sends a position signal to the throttle
control unit, Appellant argues sensor 35 does not send a position signal to
4
Appeal 2018-002697
Application 14/427,830
the throttle control unit. Id. (citing Noh ,r,r 28-29). Rather, sensor 35 is
used to determine the amount of current to apply to stator 33 of the actuator
apparatus 30, which is used to apply pressing-force to the pedal arm. Id.
( citing Noh ,r 29).
In responding to the same argument made in the Appeal Brief, see
Appeal Br. 8-10, the Examiner quotes paragraphs 28, 29, and 31 ofNoh,
and states that "at least Noh' s teachings are sufficient to anticipate the
claimed limitations in the instant application, and thus rejected under 35
USC 102." Ans. 11-12. Having reviewed these paragraphs, we agree with
Appellant that sensor 19 is disclosed as sending a signal to the throttle
control unit, while sensor 3 5 is disclosed as being used to determine the
amount of current applied to the stator of actuator 30 through control of
ECU 32. The Examiner does not explain how these paragraphs teach both
sensors being connected to the throttle control unit and configured to output
the pedal position signal to the throttle control unit, which is a central engine
controller. The new ground of rejection based on anticipation also does not
address whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
modify Noh to provide a redundant signal as claimed. 5
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
5 Although the Board is authorized to enter a new ground of rejection under
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects
not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1213.02.
5
Appeal 2018-002697
Application 14/427,830
Rejections II-VIII
Rejections II through VIII as set forth above rely on the same
unsupported findings as the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 11 discussed supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting dependent
claims 2--4, 7-10, and 13, as set forth in Rejections II through VIII, for the
same reasons that we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claims 1, 6, and 11.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-11, and
13.
REVERSED
6