Ex Parte Yamaguchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

11857903 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

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 Claim 10 has been withdrawn.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