Ex Parte Meier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

10912593 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte JÖRG MEIER and OLAF THIELKING ________________ Appeal 2010-011859 Application 10/912,593 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 2 The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 3 final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as 4 being anticipated by Kutscher (US 6,266,590 B1, issued Jul. 24, 2001). The 5 Examiner has withdrawn claims 3 and 4 from consideration. Oral argument 6 was heard on December 11, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 7 § 6(b).8 1 The Appellants identify the real parties in interest as WABCO GmbH of Hanover, Germany. Appeal No. 2010-011859 Application No. 10/912,593 2 We REVERSE. 1 Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative: 2 1. A method for controlling pressure in a 3 compressed-air accumulator of a level-control 4 system of a motor vehicle, 5 the level-control system having a 6 pressure control apparatus including a 7 computing device and a compressed-air 8 delivery system, 9 the method comprising the steps of 10 automatically determining an index pressure 11 value using the computing device based on at least 12 one of a relative level and a load of the vehicle, 13 and 14 adjusting accumulator pressure by actuating 15 the compressed-air delivery device based on said 16 index pressure value. 17 18 Claim 10 similarly recites a method for controlling pressure in a 19 compressed-air accumulator including the steps of “automatically 20 determining an index pressure value using the computing device based on 21 both a relative level and a load of the vehicle, and adjusting accumulator 22 pressure based on said index pressure value using the pressure-control 23 apparatus.” 24 Kutscher describes a pneumatic suspension leveling system 1. 25 (Kutscher, col. 3, ll. 44-48). Kutscher’s system 1 includes a compressor 7 26 and a central pressure accumulator 9. The compressor 7 and the central 27 pressure accumulator 9 communicate pneumatically with each other and 28 with pneumatic suspension leveling elements 2 through electromagnetically 29 switchable cutoff valves 5, 8. (Kutscher, col. 3, ll. 51-59). 30 Appeal No. 2010-011859 Application No. 10/912,593 3 Kutscher’s control device 11 calculates upper and lower pressure 1 cutoff values PZo, PZu for the pressure in the central pressure accumulator 9 2 based on the ambient pressure PU. (Kutscher, col. 5, ll. 57-61). The 3 Examiner has not identified any persuasive evidence in Kutscher that the 4 control device 11 calculates either PZo or PZu based on the signal output by 5 any of the level sensors 22. When the control device detects that the signal 6 PZ in the central pressure accumulator 9 falls below the lower pressure cutoff 7 value PZu, the control device 11 signals the compressor 7 to recharge the 8 central pressure accumulator 9 to the upper pressure cutoff value PZo. 9 (Kutscher, col. 5, ll. 9-18). 10 When Kutscher’s control device 11 determines that a level lift is 11 necessary, the control device 11 signals valves 5, 8 to open. The opening of 12 valves 5, 8 charges air from the central pressure accumulator 9 into 13 corresponding pneumatic suspension leveling elements 2. In the process, the 14 pressure PZ in the central pressure accumulator 9 drops. (Kutscher, col. 4, 15 ll. 48-52 and 55-59). This appears to be the only circumstance in which 16 Kutscher describes the pressure as PZ dropping. 17 The Examiner finds that the pressure PZ in the central pressure 18 accumulator 9 corresponds to the index pressure value recited in claims 1 19 and 10. (See, e.g., Ans. 4). The Appellants correctly point out that the 20 pressure PZ cannot correspond to the index pressure value recited in claims 1 21 and 10 because the pressure PZ is not automatically determined using a 22 computing device based on at least one of a relative level and a load of the 23 vehicle. (See, e.g., App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5). In particular, the control 24 device 11 appears to determine PZ based on the signal SZ from the 25 accumulator pressure sensor 13 (see Kutscher, col. 4, ll. 60-66) and not 26 Appeal No. 2010-011859 Application No. 10/912,593 4 based on the level of the vehicle body relative to the wheels. The fact that 1 the level of the vehicle body over the wheels is taken into consideration by 2 the control device 11 during level regulation (Kutscher, col. 4, ll. 26-29) 3 does not imply that the relative level is taken into consideration by the 4 control device 11 in determining the pressure PZ. 5 Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that Kutscher describes a 6 method for controlling pressure in a compressed-air accumulator satisfying 7 each limitation of claim 1 or claim 10. We do not sustain the rejection of 8 claims 1, 2, and 5-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by 9 Kutscher. 10 11 DECISION 12 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2 and 5-13 16. 14 15 REVERSED 16 17 18 Klh 19