Ex Parte Robertson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 2018

13901675 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/901,675 05/24/2013 96411 7590 05/22/2018 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephen L. Robertson 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. 2012-243 I 22562-811 9458 EXAMINER THOMAS, ANA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2018 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 STEPHEN L. ROBERTSON 1 Appeal 2016-003 7 64 Application 13/901,675 Technology Center 3600 Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. An oral hearing was held on April 17, 2018. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. ("Appellant") is the Applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing ("Tr."). Appeal 2016-003764 Application 13/901,675 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal. l, A system for controlling an application of a plurality of trailer brakes comprising: a processor; a rnernory modu1e communicatively coupled to the processor; a trailer brake output circuit operatively coupled to the pluranty of trailer brakes and communicatively coupled to the processor; a cornering attitude input communicatively coupled to the processor; machine readable instructions stored in the memory module that cause the system to perform at least the fo11owing when executed by the processor: receive a con1ering attitude signal from the con1ering ~ ~ ~ attitude input; detennine when an understeer cornering attitude exists based on the received cornering attitude signal; and prevent the application of the plurality of trailer brakes by the trailer brake output circuit when the understeer cornering attitude is determined to exist. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Garvey Tandy Heise Englert US 6,705,684 Bl US 2007 /0260385 Al US 2009/0120747 Al US 8,260,518 B2 THE REJECTIONS Mar. 16, 2004 Nov. 8, 2007 May 14, 2009 Sept. 4, 2012 I. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Englert. Final Act. 3-7. 2 Appeal 2016-003764 Application 13/901,675 II. Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Tandy. Id. at 7-9. III. Claims 4, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Englert and Garvey. Id. at 9-10. IV. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Englert and Heise. Id. at 10-11. OPINION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Englert discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, including, inter alia, "machine readable instructions ... that cause the system [of claim 1 or the vehicle of claim 11] to ... [i] determine when an understeer cornering attitude exists based on the received cornering attitude signal; and [ii] prevent the application of the plurality of trailer brakes by the trailer brake output circuit when the understeer cornering attitude is determined to exist," as claimed. Final Act. 3--4. More particularly, the Examiner finds that: (i) Englert's "trailer sway control system determines a trailer angle" and this is a determination of when an "understeer coming attitude" exists; and (ii) "the plurality of brakes on one side of the trailer is not applied" when "the trailer sway control system sends instructions to apply necessary braking" and this constitutes "prevent[ing] the application of plurality of trailer brakes." Id. at 4 (emphasis omitted) (citing Englert 1:54--64, 2:52-54, Figs. 5, 6). Appellant asserts that: An "understeer cornering attitude" is defined in paragraph [0018] of the specification as "a state of a vehicle-trailer combination in which the vehicle-trailer combination is at risk of sliding out of a tum, such as when the front of the vehicle begins to slide out 3 Appeal 2016-003764 Application 13/901,675 while turning, which may result in instability of the vehicle- trailer combination." Appeal Br. 10. Although much of the language of this definition in the Specification is directed to non-limiting statements (e.g., "such as when the front of the vehicle begins to slide out while turning" or "which may result in instability of the vehicle-trailer combination") (Spec. i-f 18 (emphasis added)), Appellant acknowledges that a determination of when an understeer cornering attitude exists requires a "determin[ ation] when the vehicle/trailer combination is at risk of sliding out of a tum." Tr. 6:23-25; see also id. at 9:12-13. Appellant argues that "merely determining a trailer angle of sway based upon proximity sensor inputs and steering wheel angle sensor, as taught by Englert, does not expressly or inherently disclose determining when an understeer cornering attitude exists." Id. at 12. Appellant continues that "the mere fact that the sensors of the Englert system could be used to determine when an understeer cornering attitude exists does not change the fact that Englert does not expressly or inherently disclose determining when an understeer cornering attitude exists." Id. We agree with Appellant that a determination of a trailer angle in Englert is not necessarily a determination of understeer cornering attitude in which the vehicle-trailer combination is at risk of sliding out of a tum. In Figure 3 of Englert, "the relative position of the trailer 12 to the vehicle 10 is depicted for the trailer angle induced by turning or trailer sway." Englert 4:35-37. Consequently, it appears that any tum is capable of inducing a trailer angle, even where the vehicle-trailer combination is not at risk of sliding out, such that a determination of a trailer angle is not necessarily a determination of an understeer cornering attitude. We note that Englert does 4 Appeal 2016-003764 Application 13/901,675 not disclose distinguishing between a tum without understeer cornering attitude and a tum with an understeer cornering attitude. Moreover, it appears that a trailer angle may be induced even when a vehicle is not turning (e.g., trailer angle induced by trailer sway) (Englert 4:35-37), and thus, a trailer angle may be detected when the vehicle is not in a tum at all, let alone in a tum in which there is a risk of the vehicle-trailer combination sliding out of it. In fact, Englert's system appears to verify that a vehicle is not in a tum before a determination of trailer sway is confirmed and necessary braking is applied to mitigate trailer sway. Id. at 3:20-25, 5:62- 6:7, Fig. 6. Thus, a determination of a trailer angle is not necessarily a determination of an understeer cornering attitude, which is defined in the Specification as a state of a vehicle-trailer combination in which the vehicle- trailer combination is at risk of sliding out of a tum. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner erred in finding that Englert discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 12, and 14--16, which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Englert. Rejection II The Examiner finds that Tandy discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 17, including, inter alia, "[i] determining ... when an understeer cornering attitude exists based on the received cornering attitude signal; and [ii] preventing ... the application of the plurality of trailer brakes by a trailer brake output circuit when the understeer cornering attitude is determined to exist," as claimed. Final Act. 7-8. More particularly, the Examiner finds that: (i) Tandy's "electronic stability enhancing control 5 Appeal 2016-003764 Application 13/901,675 system is capable of detecting an instability ... in the tow-vehicle/trailer combination and determines an optimal braking action" and this is determining when an understeer cornering attitude exists; and (ii) "the trailer computer (321) communicates optimal braking applications instructions to the tow-vehicle's computer (31 )"and this is preventing the application of trailer brakes when the understeer cornering attitude is determined to exist. Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Tandy i-fi-17, 60, 66 (11. 20-25), 71, Figs. 2- 11 ). Appellant argues that "the mere fact that the sensors of the Tandy system could be used to determine when an understeer cornering attitude exists does not change the fact that Tandy does not expressly or inherently disclose determining when an understeer cornering attitude exists, as recited in independent claim 1 7." Appeal Br. 1 7. We agree with Appellant that a broad disclosure of using "processors to identify specifications and characteristics representing the tow-vehicle and the trailer and to calculate force values and motion values that affect the tow-vehicle and trailer assembly combination for comparison with known threshold values" and, based on such information, "provid[ing] instructions for stabilization, which can include braking to at least one wheel of the tow- vehicle and trailer" (Tandy Abstract) is not a disclosure of the particular method step of "determining, automatically by the processor, when an understeer cornering attitude exists based on the received cornering attitude signal," as claimed. The claimed method requires certain specific action (i.e., preventing the application of trailer brakes by a trailer brake output circuit) when there has been a determination specifically of an understeer cornering attitude (i.e., "a state of a vehicle-trailer combination in which the 6 Appeal 2016-003764 Application 13/901,675 vehicle-trailer combination is at risk of sliding out of a tum" (Spec. i-f 18), as opposed to any other vehicle instability). Tandy does not disclose specifically determining when an understeer cornering attitude exists, nor what specific action to take (i.e., preventing the application of trailer brakes) when such a determination exists. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner erred in finding that Tandy discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 17, and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 17, and claims 18- 20 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Tandy. Re} ections III and IV The Examiner's rejections of claims 4, 8, 10, and 13 rely on the same erroneous finding that Englert discloses machine readable instructions that cause the system or vehicle to determine when an understeer cornering attitude exists (i.e., a state of a vehicle-trailer combination in which the vehicle-trailer combination is at risk of sliding out of a tum, as defined in the Specification) based on the received cornering attitude signal. Final Act. 9, 10. The Examiner does not explain how Garvey or Heise would remedy the deficiency of Englert. Id. Accordingly, we do not sustain, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, the rejections of: claims 4, 10, and 13 as unpatentable over Englert and Garvey; and claim 8 as unpatentable over Englert and Heise. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, and 14-- 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Englert is reversed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Tandy is reversed. 7 Appeal 2016-003764 Application 13/901,675 The Examiner's decision to reject claims 4, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Englert and Garvey is reversed. The Examiner's decision to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Englert and Heise is reversed. REVERSED 8