Ex Parte Yamaguchi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 201411857903 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/857,903 09/19/2007 Ichiro YAMAGUCHI 040356-0613 1753 22428 7590 07/01/2014 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP SUITE 500 3000 K STREET NW WASHINGTON, DC 20007 EXAMINER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2014 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 ICHIRO YAMAGUCHI and YOSHITAKA DEGUCHI ________________ Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1‒9. App. Br. 2. Claim 10 has been withdrawn. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellants’ representative presented oral argument on June 19, 2014. We AFFIRM-IN-PART. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to the control of drive force distributed to wheels in a four-wheel drive vehicle.” Spec. para. 1. Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 2 Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A driving/braking force control system for a vehicle having at least a pair of a right wheel and a left wheel which are independently controlled, comprising: a driving/braking force regulating mechanism which applies a wheel driving/braking force to each of the wheels; and a programmable controller programmed to: set dynamic wheel driving/braking force target values on the basis of a present operation state; calculate a vehicle front/aft force, a vehicle lateral force and a vehicle yaw moment as parameters representing vehicle behavior generated by the dynamic wheel driving/braking force target values; calculate a wheel driving/braking force limiting range for each of the dynamic wheel driving/braking force target values; determine, when one of the dynamic wheel driving/braking force target values is not within the wheel driving/braking force limiting range, a vehicle behavior variation amount target value which is represented by a ratio of variation amount target values of the vehicle front/aft force, the vehicle lateral force, and the vehicle yaw moment; calculate a variation in a tire lateral force of each wheel accompanying a variation in the wheel driving/braking force of each wheel on the basis of a sensitivity of the tire lateral force of each wheel; calculate a plurality of sets of wheel driving/braking forces that achieve the vehicle behavior variation amount target value even when a variation in the tire lateral force of each wheel accompanying a variation in the wheel driving/braking force of each wheel occurs; select a set of wheel driving/braking forces from the plurality of sets of wheel driving/braking forces as wheel driving/braking force command values such that Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 3 each of the wheel driving/braking forces in the selected set is within the driving/braking force limiting range; and control the driving/braking force regulating mechanism to apply wheel driving/braking forces to the right wheel and the left wheel according to the wheel driving/braking force command values. REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Nakamura US 2002/0109402 A1 Aug. 15, 2002 THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1‒9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Nakamura. Ans. 4. ANALYSIS As indicated supra, Appellants’ counsel presented oral argument on June 19, 2014. 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(i) (2011) states that “[a]t oral hearing only the Record will be considered . . . . Any argument not presented in a brief cannot be raised at an oral hearing.” Appellants’ arguments presented at this hearing have been taken into consideration in our analysis. Appellants argue claims 1 and 9 together and Appellants also present separate arguments for dependent claims 2‒8. App. Br. 5‒19. We select claims 1‒8 for review with claim 9 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claim 1 Appellants contend that claim 1 recites a programmable controller “programmed to determine, when one of the dynamic wheel driving/braking force target values is not within the wheel driving/braking force limiting Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 4 range.” App. Br. 5‒6. Appellants “acknowledge that Nakamura does teach a microcomputer” but contend that Nakamura “does not teach the specifically programmed controller of claim 1.” Reply Br. 4, see also App. Br. 5‒6. In support, Appellants contend that “[t]he Examiner alleged that claim 13 of Nakamura teaches such a controller” which Appellants’ contend is incorrect. App. Br. 6. To the extent Appellants’ assertion is that the Examiner relies only on claim 13 for disclosing this limitation, such limited reliance is incorrect because the Examiner also references Nakamura’s Abstract and Paragraphs 11 and 577 for disclosing this feature. Ans. 5, 12. Nakamura’s Abstract discloses a “motion control device[]” for controlling a vehicle and “means for estimating” reaction forces at each wheel. Nakamura’s Paragraph 577 discloses that “electric control means 36” “function[s] as the vehicle motion control device according to the present invention.” The Examiner also equates the claimed “target values” with the Abstract’s disclosure of “Spin and Drift conditions” as well as the discussion in Paragraph 11 regarding ascertaining whether “the vehicle may be judged under a spin or drift condition” based on whether “the sum of the yaw moments is out of a predetermined range” or not. Ans. 5. Hence, Appellants’ contention indicating that Nakamura only discloses a “general purpose computer or machine [that] does not contain all of the features of the special purpose computer or machine” as recited by Appellants, is not persuasive. Reply Br. 4‒5. Nor is Appellants’ contention persuasive that Nakamura fails to disclose a controller programed to ascertain “target values [that are] not within the wheel driving/braking force limiting range.” App. Br. 6, see also, e.g., Nakamura Figs. 2C, 24, and 29. Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 5 Appellants also contrast the force ratio employed by Nakamura with the force ratio discussed in Appellants’ Specification. App. Br. 7. While it may be argued that the actual ratios themselves differ (App. Br. 8), claim 1 only specifies that “a ratio” be employed and that this ratio is to involve the three parameters of “the vehicle front/aft force, the vehicle lateral force, and the vehicle yaw moment.” It is not disputed that moment equals force times distance and hence, Nakamura’s ratio, which is a ratio of wheel moments, clearly involves road reaction forces at each of the tires. See, e.g., Nakamura Fig. 6 and paras. 10, 11, 175, and 176; see also App. Br. 7 and Ans. 5‒6. Appellants do not persuasively explain how the ratio of the various moments discussed in Nakamura is not also a disclosure of a ratio involving forces associated with those moments. Further, Appellants do not persuasively explain how, in view of Nakamura’s illustrated and discussed tire forces (see, e.g., Nakamura Fig. 3), Nakamura fails to disclose a ratio involving vehicle front/aft forces, lateral forces, and yaw moment. Appellants also contend that Nakamura fails to disclose the claim limitation directed to a controller “programmed to calculate a variation in a tire lateral force of each wheel.” App. Br. 8. Appellants initially address Nakamura’s claim 13 (cited by the Examiner, Ans. 6) and how this claim fails to disclose this limitation. App. Br. 9‒10. In response, the Examiner also identifies Nakamura’s Paragraphs 14 and 15 as disclosing this limitation. Ans. 13. Paragraph 14 of Nakamura states that “controlling means may be provided with means to calculate a slip angle of each of the wheels” and also “to calculate a maximum static frictional coefficient between each wheel and the road surface abutting thereon.” Paragraph 15 of Nakamura states that “[t]he means for estimating a road reaction force Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 6 generated on each of the wheels may estimate a longitudinal force and a lateral force on each of the wheels individually” (emphasis added). When specifically addressing Nakamura’s Paragraphs 14 and 15, Appellants contend that these paragraphs are silent regarding the force being ascertained “on the basis of a sensitivity of the tire lateral force of each wheel.” Reply Br. 6‒7. Appellants do not make clear how Nakamura’s disclosure in these paragraphs of estimating road reaction forces occurring at each wheel that involve lateral and longitudinal forces, slip angle and wheel friction (Ans. 13) fails to disclose a force calculation based on the sensitivity of the tire lateral force at each wheel. Appellants also contend that “the words ‘sensitive’ and ‘sensitivity’ are nowhere to be found in Nakamura” (App. Br. 10), but we are instructed that “[a] reference does not fail as an anticipation merely because it does not contain a description of the subject matter of the appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis.” In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978). Appellants further contend that Nakamura’s controller is not “programmed to calculate a plurality of sets of wheel driving/braking forces.” App. Br. 10. Here, the Examiner identified Nakamura’s Abstract as disclosing this limitation and subsequently supplemented this finding by also referencing Nakamura’s Paragraph 535. Ans. 6, 14. Appellants contend that Nakamura’s controller “calculates at most a single yaw moment and a single set of forces that generate that yaw moment.” App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 7. Appellants do not address in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief the Examiner’s reference to Nakamura’s Paragraph 535, but instead, Appellants focus solely on Nakamura’s Abstract. App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 7‒8. Nakamura Paragraph 535 discloses the calculation of a Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 7 multitude of target forces, some of which are discarded, such that “a force finally applied to each wheel, Ftxi, may be selected from the first, second and third target longitudinal forces” as set forth in the accompanying table. In view of the record presented and the numerous forces disclosed (see also Nakamura para. 10 regarding a yaw moment “generated by the road reaction force on each wheel”), we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in relying on Nakamura for disclosing this limitation. Appellants also contend that Nakamura’s controller is not “programmed to calculate a wheel driving/braking force limiting range.” App. Br. 11. The Examiner identifies Nakamura’s Abstract as well as Paragraphs 10 and 11 as disclosing this limitation. Ans. 5, 15. Appellants address the Examiner’s reference to Nakamura’s discussion of spin and drift conditions, and yaw moments at these locations, but Appellants contend that “[a] yaw moment is not a wheel driving/braking force, and thus, a critical yaw moment is not a wheel driving/braking force limiting range.” App. Br. 12, see also Reply Br. 9. Nakamura Paragraph 10 discusses judging “whether the behavior of the turning vehicle is stable or unstable based upon the yaw moment actually generated by the road reaction force[s] on each wheel.” Hence, Nakamura’s determination of vehicle stability is premised on “road reaction force[s] on each wheel” (also note that moment equals force times distance). Consequently, Appellants do not adequately explain how Nakamura’s disclosure of judging whether a vehicle is stable or not based on wheel forces fails to disclose a force limiting range as claimed. Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 8 Based on the record presented, Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 9. Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation of a controller programmed to determine a target value “which can suppress a variation in the vehicle lateral force and a variation in the vehicle yaw moment.” App. Br. 12. The Examiner references Nakamura’s Abstract and paras. 11, 12, and 15. Ans. 7, 16. Appellants contend that with respect to Nakamura Paragraphs 11 and 12, “Applicants wish to reiterate that, in Nakamura, the ‘yaw moments to be added to a vehicle body’ are not determined so as to ‘suppress a variation in the vehicle lateral force’ as required by claim 2, but rather are determined only so as to avoid spin and drift conditions.” Reply Br. 10, see also App. Br. 13. Indeed, Nakamura Paragraph 11 discusses the use of yaw moments to ascertain whether “the vehicle may be judged under a spin or a drift condition.” Furthermore, the following paragraph, Nakamura Paragraph 12, discusses Nakamura’s “driving and braking force controlling means” that may be adapted “to control the driving and braking forces on each of the wheels so as to produce a spin avoiding yaw moment and a drift avoiding yaw moment as the yaw moment required to be added to the vehicle body so as to stabilize the vehicle running.” Emphasis added. As previously discussed, a moment equals force times distance. Additionally, Nakamura Paragraph 15 states that the means for estimating a road reaction force may likewise estimate a longitudinal and lateral force on each wheel. Hence, Appellants’ contention that Nakamura’s discussion of a yaw moment does not refer to forces, and Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 9 particularly to lateral forces, is not persuasive. Furthermore, Appellants’ contention to the effect that Nakamura’s avoidance of spin or drift conditions is not a discussion regarding the suppression of forces on the vehicle is not persuasive. Appellants also contend that “if the controller of Nakamura never determines a vehicle behavior variation amount target value as claimed,” then “Nakamura cannot disclose or teach a controller programmed” as recited. App. Br. 13. Appellants’ premise that Nakamura’s controller does not determine a target value is not persuasive for the reasons set forth supra and consequently, Appellants’ contention is not persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Claims 3 and 4 Claims 3 and 4 both depend directly from claim 1 and Appellants present substantially the same, if not identical, arguments with respect to claims 3 and 4 as previously presented with respect to claim 2. App. Br. 13‒ 15. We do not find these arguments persuasive for the same reasons previously stated and accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and further recites maintaining a ratio between a front/aft force and a lateral force “at cos β/sin β, where β is a vehicle skid angle.” Nakamura does not employ the term “skid” but rather employs the terms “spin,” “drift,” and “slip.” (see, e.g., Nakamura paras. 11 and 176) and there is no indication that such terms fail to overlap. However, regarding the specific ratio recited, the Examiner references Nakamura Paragraph 176. Ans. 7‒8. While this section of Nakamura (i.e., Paragraphs Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 10 174‒176) disclose trigonometric functions, the Examiner fails to identify where the specifically-recited function (i.e., the ratio of “cos β/sin β”) is disclosed or taught. See App. Br. 16. We are instructed that “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, there is no express disclosure in Nakamura of this ratio and the Examiner does not elaborate as to how this ratio is inherently described. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as being anticipated by Nakamura. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation of multiplying the wheel target values “by a positive decreasing constant.” The Examiner additionally relies on Nakamura Paragraphs 233 and 234 for disclosing this limitation. Ans. 8. Paragraph 234 of Nakamura teaches the use of a “positive constant” in the multiplication of a force, but Appellants contend that the forces involved are different. App. Br. 17. Appellants also contend that Nakamura’s disclosure of a “positive constant” is not a “positive decreasing constant” as claimed. App. Br. 17. The Examiner does not indicate or explain otherwise nor does the Examiner show where Nakamura discloses that its constant decreases. Ans. 17. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as being anticipated by Nakamura. Claims 7 and 8 Claims 7 and 8 both depend directly from claim 1. Appellants’ arguments presented in support of these claims, while different from each Appeal 2012-005825 Application 11/857,903 11 other, are nevertheless a reiteration of arguments previously discussed with respect to claim 1 and as such, are not persuasive. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒4 and 7‒9 is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation