Ex Parte Masuda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 9, 2017

12949253 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 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.
12/949,253 11/18/2010 Naoki MASUDA 3928-40011 5469
25570 7590 01/11/2017
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C.
7918 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
HOLWERDA, STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/11/2017 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):
lgallaugher@rmsc2.com
docketing@rmsc2.com
dbeltran @ rmsc2. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAOKI MASUDA and NOBUYUKI NOMURA
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Naoki Masuda and Nobuyuki Nomura (“Appellants”)1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19 in this
application. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and it recites:
1. A vehicle brake fluid pressure control apparatus
comprising:
a pump configured to pressurize a brake fluid so as to
increase a fluid pressure within a wheel brake;
a pressure regulator valve configured to adjust the fluid
pressure within the wheel brake, the pressure regulator valve
comprises a normally open electromagnetic valve which is
configured to adjust a differential pressure between an upstream
side and a downstream side of the pressure regulator valve in
accordance with a current value; and
a control unit configured to control a current which is
caused to flow to the pressure regulator valve, the control unit
including:
a memory part configured to store a valve closing
map which shows a relationship between the differential
pressure between the upstream side and the downstream
side of the pressure regulator valve and an output current
value for closing the pressure regulator valve and a valve
opening map which shows a relationship between the
differential pressure and an output current value for
opening the pressure regulator valve, wherein
when attempting to reduce the fluid pressures
within wheel brakes by opening the pressure regulator
valve, the control unit executes a current value switching
control in which current that flows to the pressure
regulator valve is controlled so that the output current
value of the valve closing map is changed to the output
current value of the valve opening map and thereafter, the
output current of the valve opening map is changed to an
output current value which lies somewhere between the
output current value of the valve closing map and the
output current value of the valve opening map.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite.
Claims 1—5, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Inagaki (US 2004/0135427 Al, pub. July 15, 2004).
Claims 6—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Inagaki and Sekiguchi (US 2005/0137775 Al, pub. June 23, 2005).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Inagaki, Sugano (US 2005/0182551 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2005), and
Nishira (US 2002/0069010 Al, pub. June 6, 2002).
ANALYSIS
A. Indefiniteness
Claims 1, 16, 18, and 19
The Examiner determines claim 1 is indefinite in first reciting a pump
“to increase a fluid pressure within a wheel brake” (lines 2—3) and a pressure
regulator valve “to adjust the fluid pressure within the wheel brake” (line 4),
but later reciting a control unit for “attempting to reduce the fluid pressures
within wheel brakes by opening” the valve (lines 16—17). Final Act. 3;
Ans. 2—3 (emphases added). In the Examiner’s view, the term “wheel
brakes” in line 16 lacks proper antecedent basis, because the claim
encompasses “in one embodiment, the invention only involves one ‘wheel
brake,’” thereby rendering the claim indefinite. Final Act. 3, 21. The
Examiner further concludes, “[i]t is unclear how a pressure regulator valve
that is connected to a single wheel brake as per line[s] 4—7 can perform
operations on a plurality of wheel brakes as per line[s 16—17].” Ans. 3.
3
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
Appellants respond that lines 2-4 of claim 1 do not limit the claim to a
single wheel brake. Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 3. Thus, in Appellants’ view,
there is no indefmiteness in line 16 referring to “plural” wheel brakes.
Appeal Br. 3. Appellants contend a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from Appellants’ Specification that the control unit is capable of
controlling multiple wheel brakes via multiple pressure regulator valves.
Reply Br. 3—5.
We determine the Examiner errs in deciding that claim 1 is indefinite.
Lines 2-4 of claim 1 do not limit the claim to a single wheel brake. See
Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (‘“[A]’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’
in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’”)
(quoting KCJCorp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). Lines 2-4 merely require that the pump and the pressure
regulator valve each operate on at least one wheel brake, without foreclosing
the possibility of other wheel brakes in the apparatus, or the possibility that
the pump pressurizes such other wheel brakes. Further, there is no
antecedent basis indefmiteness in later reciting “the fluid pressure within
wheel breaks” at lines 16—17, because the article “the” does not appear
before the phrase “wheel breaks.” Considering claim 1 as a whole, a person
of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim to require at least two
wheel “breaks” (line 16) having respective fluid pressures controlled by a
pump and a pressure regulator valve (lines 2-4). This is consistent with
Appellants’ Specification, which discloses two wheel brakes — for example,
the front left (FL) and rear right (RR) wheel brakes — both being controlled
by the same pump 4 and the same pressure regulator valve R. See Spec.,
4
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
Fig. 2, 9:22—10:4, 11:7—10, 13:5—13, 14:14—21. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 as indefinite.
Claims 16, 18, and 19 are rejected as indefinite on the sole basis of
their dependency from claim 1. See Final Act. 3—5. Thus, we likewise do
not sustain the rejection of those claims as indefinite.
Claims 2—15 and 17: “WheelBrakes”
Additionally concerning claims 2—15 and 17 as a group, the Examiner
determines these claims are indefinite in reciting the term “wheel brakes,”
which “lacks proper antecedent basis given that, in one embodiment, the
invention only involves one ‘wheel brake’ as per” their common parent
claim 1. Final Act. 3—5. For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner errs
in this regard.
Claims 3, 5, and 7: “Gradual ” Reduction of Fluid Pressure
Additionally concerning claims 3,5, and 17 as a group, the Examiner
determines these claims are indefinite in reciting fluid pressures are
“gradually” reduced, because that “relative term” “is not defined by the
claim language” or Appellants’ Specification. Final Act. 3. According to
the Examiner, “the Specification may disclose an embodiment in which the
term ‘graduaF is not indefinite,” but “the appearance of such an embodiment
in the Specification is not sufficient for determining whether the term
‘graduaF as per the claim language is indefinite in that it would be improper
to import limitations from the Specification into the claim language.” Adv.
Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner acknowledges the Specification’s
disclosure that “the fluid pressures within the wheel brakes are reduced
gradually along a target fluid pressure” (Spec. 23:5—6, Fig. 6(a)), but notes
5
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
the claims do not specify any reference value such as a target fluid pressure.
Ans. 4—5.
Appellants respond that the claim term “gradually” in not indefinite in
light of their Specification. Appeal Br. 3^4. Appellants particularly rely on
the description of their Figures 6(a)-6(c) as “clearly defining] the term
‘gradual’ . . . such that one of skill in the art would understand such term as
recited in the claims.” Id. (citing Spec. 22:6—23:6). Appellants further argue
the claims need not “provide a reference value for the [term] ‘gradual’, e.g.,
target fluid pressure ... to be understood” in light of their Specification.
Reply Br. 8.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants’ Figure 6(a) illustrates one
example of a gradual reduction of pressure over time as a solid line, and one
example of a “drastic[]” or non-gradual reduction of pressure over time as a
dashed line underneath the solid line. See Spec. 22:6—23:6. Appellants’
assertion that this clearly defines the term “gradual” is not correct. One
could imagine numerous alterations to the solid line that would raise serious
questions as to whether the alterations would change the gradual nature of
the solid line to be non-gradual. The written description of Figure 6(a) does
not provide further guidance in helping to specify what it is about the solid
line, versus the dashed line, that makes the former gradual and the latter non-
gradual. See id. Elsewhere the Specification indicates the solid line
advantageously “allow[s] the driver to feel a stabler braking feeling” versus
the dashed line {id. at 23:17—23), but applying such a standard as the
meaning of “gradual” merely replaces one vague standard with another
vague standard. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 3,5, and 17 as
being indefinite in reciting a “gradual” reduction of fluid pressure.
6
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
Claim 15: Control “Returns to START”
Additionally concerning claim 15, the Examiner determines the term
“START” lacks a clear meaning because there is no antecedent basis in the
claim. Final Act. 4—5. According to the Examiner, “it is unclear what it
would mean to return to START” as recited in claim 15. Id. The Examiner
acknowledges the Specification describes “the cruise control switch 60 being
ON (START)” (Spec. 20:16—19), but determines “there is no claim language
indicating that START is linked with operation of any cruise control
switch.” Ans. 5—6.
Appellants point to their Specification as defining “START” to mean
“the cruise control switch 60 being ON (START).” Appeal Br. 4 (citing
Spec. 20:16—19). Appellants tie that disclosure to claim 15 in that both
indicate “if the inter-vehicle distance is larger than the primary target value
(LI), control stops-and returns to START.” Reply Br. 9.
We agree with the Examiner. First, neither claim 15 nor its parent
claims 1, 6, and 7 specifies a “START” in the brake control operation, so the
claim language fails to indicate what it means to “retum[] to START” as
recited in claim 15. The Specification disclosure cited by Appellants states:
“As is shown in Fig. 5, the control unit 20 starts the automatic braking
control on condition that no signal is received from the pedal sensor 30 (no
input to the brake pedal) and the cruise control switch 60 is ON (START).”
Spec. 20:16—19 (emphases added). That disclosure, however, does not
specify what control properties are exhibited by the control unit at the time
the cruise control switch is turned on to start cruise control. Thus, it is not
clear what control properties are required to be exhibited by the control unit
7
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
by “returning] to START” as recited in claim 15. We sustain the rejection
of claim 15 as being indefinite in reciting a “retum[] to START.”
B. Anticipation by Inagaki
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Inagaki, the Examiner finds the
claimed “pressure regulator valve” corresponds to Inagaki’s normally open
electromagnetic valve 8. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Inagaki discloses
the claimed “valve closing map” and “valve opening map” because a control
unit controls the current supplied to valve 8 to open and close the valve, and
thereby provide an anti-lock braking control. Id. at 5—6. In particular,
according to the Examiner, the broadest reasonable construction of claim 1
“includes in one embodiment a simple on/off map in which the pressure
drops to zero when the normally-open valve is not energized [i.e., the
claimed valve opening map] and the pressure increases to a maximum when
the normally-open valve is energized [i.e., the claimed valve closing map].”
Id. at 22—23; Ans. 6—8, 10—12.
Applying that construction of the claimed maps,2 the Examiner further
finds Inagaki discloses the “current value switching control” recited in the
final limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 6. In particular, the Examiner finds
Inagaki’s control unit “actuates the valve (8) between an open position in
which current value is zero, a closed position in which current value is
maximized, and an intermediate position in which current value is between
zero and the maximum.'” Id. at 23 (emphasis added) (citing Inagaki, Fig. 3,
2 Appellants dispute the Examiner’s construction of the claimed maps. See
Appeal Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 11—12. We need not resolve this particular
dispute, however, as we conclude that, even under the Examiner’s claim
construction, Inagaki does not anticipate claim 1.
8
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
H 38—55). The Examiner further explains Inagaki’s control unit “is
configured to transmit a command associated with a less than fully energized
state of the valves (8) in order to maintain the depressurized state for a
specified duration.” Ans. 13—14 (emphasis added) (citing Inagaki, Figs. 3—5,
1136-59).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Inagaki discloses the
switching control recited in the final limitation of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8—14.
We agree. That limitation of claim 1 specifies that “when attempting to
reduce the fluid pressures within wheel brakes by opening the pressure
regulator valve, the control unit” changes the current “to the output current
value of the valve opening map and thereafter’'' changes the current to a
value “which lies somewhere between” the two maps. Appeal Br. 20
(Claims App.) (emphases added). Under the Examiner’s findings discussed
above, Inagaki discloses the claimed “valve opening map” in providing zero
current to valve 8, so that valve 8 will achieve its normally open position.
Applying that finding, the switching control limitation of claim 1 would
require reducing brake fluid pressure by opening valve 8 via changing the
supplied current to zero and, “thereafter,” changing to another value
somewhere between zero and the full energization required to close valve 8.
There is no disclosure in Inagaki of reducing brake fluid pressure by
opening valve 8 via changing the supplied current to zero and, thereafter,
changing the current to another value somewhere between zero and the full
energization current. Inagaki reflects reducing brake fluid pressure by
entering a “pressure decreasing mode” when the wheels are about to lock up,
but that operation involves closing valve 8 (not opening it as claimed) by
9
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
supplying the full energization current to valve 8 (not zero or some
intermediate value as claimed). Inagaki, Figs. 4 and 6, Tflf 30, 37, 58.
Inagaki also indicates valve 8 may enter a “holding mode” with a
“sufficient[ly] closed condition” by supplying 65—75% of the full
energization current to valve 8. Inagaki, Figs. 4 and 6, Tflf 37, 50-53, 61—62.
However, even if such a holding mode is deemed to be an attempt to reduce
fluid pressure by partially opening valve 8 as recited in claim 1, there is no
indication that such a partial opening is achieved by first reducing the
current to zero and thereafter changing the current to less than 100% of the
full energization current. Id.
Inagaki’s final mode is a “pressure increasing mode,” which is the
opposite of the claimed “attempt[] to reduce the fluid pressures within wheel
brakes.” Id. at Fig. 6, 37, 63—66. Further, while valve 8 is opened in the
pressure increasing mode, there is no indication that such opening is
achieved by first reducing the current to zero and thereafter changing the
current to less than 100% of the full energization current. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2—5, 16, 17, and 19 depending from claim 1, as anticipated by
Inagaki.
C. Obviousness over Inagaki, Sekiguchi, Sugano, and Nishira
The Examiner’s additional consideration of dependent claims 6—15
and 18 in light of Inagaki and one or more of Sekiguchi, Sugano, and
Nishira does not cure the deficiency of Inagaki with respect to independent
claim 1. See Final Act. 9-20. We, therefore, do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of these claims.
10
Appeal 2015-000925
Application 12/949,253
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—19 as indefinite is affirmed as to
claims 3, 5, 7, and 15, and is reversed as to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8—14, and 16—
19.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 16, 17, and 19 as anticipated
by Inagaki, and of claims 6—15 as unpatentable over Inagaki and Sekiguchi,
and of claim 18 as unpatentable over Inagaki, Sugano, and Nishira, are each
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11