Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2022

2020005779 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2022)

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. 15/788,088 10/19/2017 Benjamin Kollmitzer INFAP608US 1088 51092 7590 01/26/2022 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC. Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000 Cleveland, OH 44114 EXAMINER BOUSONO, ORLANDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2022 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): docketing@eschweilerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BENJAMIN KOLLMITZER and CHRISTOPH STEINER Appeal 2020-005779 Application 15/788,088 Technology Center 2600 Before BETH Z. SHAW, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21, and 23. Claims 8, 9, 11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 22 stand objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Infineon Technologies AG. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005779 Application 15/788,088 2 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method, a tire-mounted tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) component, and a machine readable storage or computer program for determining a duration of at least one contact patch event of a rolling tire. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for determining a duration of a contact patch event of a rolling tire, comprising: obtaining a sequence of non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples of the rolling tire from a tire-mounted acceleration sensor; and determining the duration of the contact patch event based on non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples of the sequence between a first time instance when the non- differentiated acceleration measurement samples cross a first acceleration value threshold and a second time instance when the non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples cross a second acceleration value threshold. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kitazaki US 2007/0213953 A1 Sept. 13, 2007 Guinart US 2014/0007683 A1 Jan. 9, 2014 Hanatsuka US 2017/0072922 A1 Mar. 16, 2017 Masago US 2018/0079262 A1 Mar. 22, 2018 Appeal 2020-005779 Application 15/788,088 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-6, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Masago and Hanatsuka. Final Act. 3. Claims 7, 12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Masago, Hanatsuka, and Guinart. Final Act. 8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Masago, Hanatsuka, and Kitazaki. Final Act. 11. OPINION On this record, we see no error in the rejections. First, we find unavailing Appellant’s argument that the combination of Masago and Hanatsuka does not teach or suggest “determining the duration of the contact patch event based on non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples of the sequence between a first time instance when the non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples cross a first acceleration value threshold and a second time instance when the non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples cross a second acceleration value threshold,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 2-3. Masago at least suggests the disputed elements using non- differentiated acceleration measurement samples, as claimed. See Masago ¶ 7, Figures 3A and 3B. Figures 3A and 3B of Masago are reproduced below. Appeal 2020-005779 Application 15/788,088 4 Appeal 2020-005779 Application 15/788,088 5 Figures 3A and 3B of Masago are diagrams showing an example of an acceleration waveform (3A) and an example of a differentiated acceleration waveform (3B). See Masago ¶ 12. In Figure 3A, the horizontal axis represents time in seconds, and the vertical axis the magnitude of acceleration. Id. ¶ 32. In the acceleration waveform, the magnitude of acceleration is 0 at the two contact patch ends, namely, the leading end Ef the left-hand circle and the trailing end Ek in the right-hand circle in the figure. Id. FIG. 3B shows a differentiated acceleration waveform obtained by differentiating the acceleration waveform shown in Figure 3A. Id. ¶ 37. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Masago teaches “extracting either one of the leading-end differentiated peak values and the trailing-end differentiated peak values, having the differentiated peak ratio within a lower limit range of 0.6 to 0.8 and an upper limit range of 1.0 to 1.2.” Ans. 4. As shown in Figure 3B of Masago, Ef and Ek correspond to the non- differentiated acceleration values of Figure 3A crossing the threshold of zero acceleration. Id. Moreover, Figure 3A of Masago only underscores Masago’s suggestion that the determining the duration of the contact patch event is based on non-differentiated samples, or is at least an obvious variation. In Masago Figure 3A, Ef and Ek correspond to the non-differentiated acceleration values crossing thresholds. Id. Although these peaks both occur at a value of zero acceleration, the two crossings occur at two different times and in two different natures of decreasing (in terms of Ef) and increasing (in terms of Ek) acceleration. Id. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the two different crossings of zero acceleration are reasonably interpreted as two threshold crossings. A broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the first and second acceleration value thresholds to differ in Appeal 2020-005779 Application 15/788,088 6 value or to differ from each other. Id. In other words, the terms “first” and “second” in the claim can be reasonably interpreted as two occurrences rather than two different values. Id. Appellant provides insufficient evidence that the Specification or claims limit the claimed thresholds in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Masago’s teachings of the two thresholds Ef and Ek, illustrated in Figure 3A. See also Masago ¶¶ 132 (“method for estimating a tire tread wear amount from a radial acceleration of a tire detected using an acceleration sensor”), 133. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the two separate crossings of zero acceleration correspond to the two claimed thresholds, absent any recitation in the claim that would preclude these two values from coinciding in terms of magnitude. Moreover, Hanatsuka also teaches non-differentiated acceleration values. See Ans. 5; Hanatsuka ¶¶ 12, 26. We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Hanatsuka to provide further evidence of using acceleration values in determining contact patch tread wear. In the Reply Brief, Appellant generally argues, for the first time, that “even if Masago taught crossing first and second acceleration value thresholds, Masago does not teach determining the duration of the contact patch event based on non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples of the sequence between a first time instance when the non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples cross zero threshold and a second time instance when the non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples cross a zero acceleration.” Reply Br. 3. Yet, there is no persuasive evidence or additional explanation for this argument on the record to substantiate this contention. Appeal 2020-005779 Application 15/788,088 7 Teaching Away We also find unavailing Appellant’s arguments that Masago and Hanatsuka teach away from the features of the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 4-6. In particular, Masago does not “teach away” from the claimed solution by merely describing that the positions of the leading end Ef and the trailing end Ek can be derived “more accurately” from the peak positions of the differentiated acceleration waveform. Masago ¶ 34. Similarly, although Hanatsuka describes a “preferable” use of differential acceleration (Hanatsuka ¶ 76) in one embodiment “when the radial acceleration of the tire is to be used,” we fail to see-nor has Appellant shown-that either Masago or Hanatsuka criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage using non-differentiated acceleration samples, to teach away from using such acceleration samples in general. See Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006). To the extent Appellant contends otherwise, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Intended Purpose We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 6) that modifying Masago to use non-differentiated acceleration measurement samples would render the tire monitoring method unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, for the reasons explained by the Examiner. See Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner that Masago, for example in Figure 3A, in fact teaches using acceleration data in the estimation of contact patch tread wear. See Ans. 7. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Appeal 2020-005779 Application 15/788,088 8 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-7, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21, and 23, which were not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION We affirm the rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 21, 23 103 Masago and Hanatsuka 1-6, 21, 23 7, 12, 17, 18 103 Masago, Hanatsuka, and Guinart 7, 12, 17, 18 10 103 Masago, Hanatsuka, and Kitazaki 10 Overall Outcome 1-7, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21, 23 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED