Ex Parte HaganDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201713792516 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131792,516 03/11/2013 28395 7590 06/26/2017 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Daniel Lee Hagan Jr. 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. 83195152 7745 EXAMINER ZIAEIANMEHDIZADEH, NA VID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2017 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL LEE HAGAN JR. Appeal 2016-006223 Application 13/792,516 1 Technology Center 3600 Before THU A. DANG, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 14--16, and 18-22, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 3. Appeal2016-006223 Application 13/792,516 INVENTION Appellant's application relates to a potential chassis damage identification and notification system. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A potential chassis damage notification system for a vehicle compnsmg: an accelerometer configured to provide a vertical acceleration data of a component of the vehicle; and a controller programmed to receive the data, compare the data to a potential damage range having a lower limit indicating normal operation of the vehicle and an upper limit that would set-off a supplemental restraint, and send a potential-chassis- damage signal when the data is within the potential-damage range. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3---6, 14--16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hopp et al. (DE 102009053404 Al; published May 19, 2011) ("Hopp"), Harada (US 2012/0053791 Al; published Mar. 1, 2012), and Carlstedt et al. (US 2007 /0032952 Al; published Feb. 8, 2007) ("Carlstedt"). Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hopp, Harada, Carlstedt, and Gloos et al. (US 2013/0158779 Al; published June 20, 2013) ("Gloos"). Claims 8-12 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hopp, Harada, Carlstedt, and Adachi (US 7,973,653 B2; issued July 5, 2011). 2 Appeal2016-006223 Application 13/792,516 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the prior art for several reasons. First, Appellant argues that the Examiner provided an insufficient rationale to combine Harada with Hopp. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues that Harada does not concern chassis damage at all. Id. Appellant further argues that "none of the prior art discloses any potential- chassis-damage signals based on vertical movement data." Id. Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The Examiner provided "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." Final Act. 3; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, in the Answer, the Examiner explained that it is reasonable to combine Hopp, which is directed to detecting potential damage based on a vehicle's lateral acceleration to a vehicle chassis, with Harada's vertical acceleration sensors to achieve the claimed invention because an artisan of ordinary skill would have known that a vertical accelerometer is better suited "to detect damage to chassis due to bumps on the road while a longitudinal accelerometer is better suited to detect damage caused by direct and side impact to a vehicle." Ans. 4. 3 Appeal2016-006223 Application 13/792,516 Appellant has not presented sufficient persuasive argument or objective evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. See Reply Br. 2. Second, Appellant argues that there is no teaching in the cited art of the limitation "a controller programmed to receive the data, compare the data to a potential damage range having a lower limit indicating normal operation of the vehicle and an upper limit that would set-off a supplemental restraint, and send a potential-chassis-damage signal when the data is within the potential-damage range." App. Br. 9. Appellant argues that "the entire control strategy of Hopp evaluates vehicle speed" (id.), and, thus, even if the vertical accelerometers of Harada were included in the vehicle of Hopp, "nothing in Hopp would provide the claimed control strategy of receiving, comparing, and sending potential-chassis-damage signals based all based on vertical acceleration data" (id. at 9--10). Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because combining the teachings of Hopp and Harada does not mandate bodily incorporation of their embodiments. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). Moreover, Appellant has not persuaded us that combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" at the time of Appellant's invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). 4 Appeal2016-006223 Application 13/792,516 Third, Appellant argues that the combination of Carlstedt with Hopp and Harada would only teach sending a potential damage signal when the acceleration rises to the level necessary to set off the supplemental restraints. App. Br. 10. Appellant argues that "[n]othing in Carlstedt teaches doing anything if potential-damage is done to the vehicle that is not large enough to set-off the supplemental restraint system." Id. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive at least because it is based on the premise that claim 1 requires sending a potential-chassis-damage signal when the damage does not rise to the level necessary to activate the supplemental restraint system. See id. at 11. The plain language of claim 1, however, recites "a potential damage range having a lower limit indicating normal operation of the vehicle and an upper limit that would set-off a supplemental restraint." Claim App 'x 1. Claim 1 also recites a controller programmed to send a potential-chassis-damage-signal "when the data is within the potential-damage range." Id. Appellant has not presented claim construction arguments sufficient to persuade us that a data value equal to the "upper limit" is not "within the potential-damage range" in claim 1. Even assuming, however, that claim 1 requires sending a potential- chassis-damage signal when the damage does not rise to the level necessary to activate the supplemental restraint system, the Examiner found that Carlstedt at least suggests that a warning is given to the driver before potential damage occurs that is not large enough to set-off the supplemental restraints. Ans. 6 (citing Carlstedt i-fi-136, 45--46). Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings based on Carlstedt. See Reply Br. 3--4. Instead, Appellant further argues that in claim 1 an "actual" impact event is sensed by the accelerometer and compared to the range, whereas 5 Appeal2016-006223 Application 13/792,516 Carlstedt merely sends warnings based on potential upcoming impact events. Id. at 3. The plain language of claim 1, however, does not recite an "actual" impact event, and we decline Appellant's invitation to import those terms into the claim. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Hopp, Harada, and Carlstedt teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 and of dependent claims 3-12, 14, 15, and 21, for which Appellant makes no separate arguments for patentability. Turning to independent claim 16, Appellant makes arguments similar to those presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 11. We find those arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given above for claim 1. In addition, Appellant argues that "even the combined teachings of the prior art fail to teach comparing sprung-mass and un-sprung mass data from two different accelerometers in order to detect potential-chassis damage." Id. at 12. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner found that Harada teaches two different accelerometers and that the values of the two different accelerometers are compared to one another in order to perform subsequent vehicle control. Final Act. 6; Ans. 8 (citing Harada, items 10, 11, Figs. 1, 2, i-fi-126-28, 53). Appellant presents insufficient persuasive argument or objective evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. Appellant also argues that the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight because the Examiner used Appellant's own teachings as a motivation to combine Harada with Hopp. App. Br. 11. 6 Appeal2016-006223 Application 13/792,516 We disagree. The Examiner found that Harada teaches measuring both sprung and unsprung mass accelerations and calculating their difference. Ans. 8 (citing Harada i-fi-126-28, 53). The Examiner noted that an artisan of ordinary skill would have appreciated that measuring the difference in vertical accelerations rather than only one of the vertical acceleration components provides a more realistic metric of relative movement between the two vehicle components (i.e., sprung and unsprung masses). Id. Appellants failed to persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings. We are also not persuaded the combination of Hopp and Harada is based upon improper hindsight because the Examiner has set forth articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the combination. Id. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Hopp, Harada, and Carlstedt teach the disputed limitations of claim 16. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 16, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 22, which Appellant argues is patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 12. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 18-20, for which Appellant makes no separate arguments for patentability. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3-12, 14--16, and 18-22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation