Pita-Gil, Guillermo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2019

14376889 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2019)

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.
14/376,889 09/15/2014 Guillermo Pita-Gil 438087US41X PCT 1005
22850 7590 12/27/2019
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
FOSTER, GERRAD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2019 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUILLERMO PITA-GIL,
FRANCOIS DESNOYER, and
GUILLAUME MARTIN

Appeal 2019-003846
Application 14/376,889
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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 8–13, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. 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, here RENAULT S.A.S. Appellant identifies itself as the
sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003846
Application 14/376,889

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to the processing of various
parameters of a motor vehicle by a mobile device of the smartphone type.”
Spec. 1:3–5. Apparatus claim 8 and method claim 13 are independent.
Claim 8 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
8. A device for determining a pressure of each tire of a
motor vehicle from vehicle CAN network data including a
parameter directly measured on said vehicle and available on a
CAN network of the vehicle, the device comprising:
a computer for mathematical processing of the vehicle
data to indirectly determine the pressure of each tire of the
vehicle, wherein the computer is hosted by a smartphone;
a specific software application for data processing by the
computer being implemented in the smartphone, and including
a model of a mathematical relationship between the parameter
and said tire pressure, for indirectly determining said tire
pressure;
a wired or wireless link implemented by the smartphone
and configured to retrieve the vehicle CAN network data by the
smartphone from the CAN network via the wired or wireless
link; and
a display implemented on the smartphone which
displays, via a graphical interface thereof, the pressure of each
tire indirectly determined by the computer based on said model.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Ihara et al. (“Ihara”) US 2006/0103513 A1 May 18, 2006
Jacobs et al. (“Jacobs”) US 2008/0043824 A1 Feb. 21, 2008
Pickering et al.
(“Pickering”)
WO 2011/147893 A1 Dec. 1, 2011
Appeal 2019-003846
Application 14/376,889

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 8–10 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jacobs and Pickering.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jacobs, Pickering and Ihara.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 8–10 and 13
as unpatentable over Jacobs and Pickering
Claim 8 recites a computer that processes vehicle data “to indirectly
determine the pressure of each tire of the vehicle.” Claim 8 further recites
software for the computer “for indirectly determining said tire pressure.”
Claim 13 recites similar language.2 Appellant’s Specification provides
guidance as to such indirect determination giving an example that employs a
computer “for monitoring tire pressure by an indirect method by processing
the signal corresponding to the speed of the wheels.” Spec. 5:11–13.
Appellant’s Specification explains that using speed data to ascertain tire
pressure is accomplished “where the variation in the dynamic radius of the
tires is used as an indicator of pressure variation, this variation in the radius
being obtained from the speed of the wheels.” Spec. 5:15–17.
The Examiner relies on Jacobs for disclosing this indirect
determination.3 See Final Act. 3. Appellant disagrees contending that in
Jacobs, the vehicle data acquired “is pressure data, not some other sensed

2 Claim 13 recites “indirectly computing the pressure of a tire of the
vehicle.”
3 The Examiner’s reliance on Pickering for disclosing the limitation directed
to a “vehicle CAN network” (“Controller Area Network”) is not challenged.
Appeal 2019-003846
Application 14/376,889

4
parameter (like wheel speed) that can be used to indirectly calculate
pressure.” Appeal Br. 6. Hence, Appellant contends that in Jacobs, the
sensed data is a “direct representation of pressure itself.” Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner references Paragraphs 126 thru 129 of Jacobs as
support for the finding that Jacobs teaches indirect pressure determination.
See Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 8, 10. These paragraphs discuss a variety of
sensors (i.e., those for biological, chemical, electrical, magnetic, nuclear, and
optical sensing), including mechanical sensors that can “be used to acquire
temperature, pressure, velocity, or acceleration information.” Jacobs ¶ 127.
Paragraph 129 of Jacobs explains that, for example, a heart rate classifier
may process EKG data to generate the current rate of a person’s heartbeat.
Likewise, a temperature sensor may process temperature data to generate an
indication of measured temperature; a pressure sensor may process pressure
data (including tire pressure) to generate an indication of pressure; and, a
velocity sensor may process velocity data to generate an indication of
velocity. See Jacobs ¶ 129; Ans. 10. The same can be said for acceleration
and other sensor types as well.
The Examiner “concedes” that in Jacobs, a pressure sensor “provides
a signal representative of pressure,” but states that “this does not preclude
Jacobs from teaching or suggesting a pressure determination as required by
the limitations of Claim 8.” Ans. 6. This assertion is not self-evident from
the teachings of Jacobs which discloses, for example, generating a pressure
value only from pressure data or, generating a velocity value only from
velocity data, etc. There is no indication in Jacobs that one might obtain,
say, a pressure value from velocity data (i.e., the exemplary “indirect
method” described in Appellant’s Specification above). The Examiner also
Appeal 2019-003846
Application 14/376,889

5
states that in Jacobs the sensed data is initially received as an “electrical
signal” and that “[t]he acquired sensor data may be passed as analog or
digital waveforms.” Ans. 7–8. The Examiner continues addressing Jacobs’
“waveform encoder 1006 for processing the sensed data for
transmission” after which, “the signal can be turned back [into its] original
form.” Ans. 8. The Examiner thus further considers this analog-to-digital
data conversion as satisfying the limitation in question. See Ans. 8, 9.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that a different form
of the same data (i.e., whether in analog or digital form) is a disclosure of
determining one parameter’s value (i.e., temperature, pressure, velocity,
acceleration, etc.) based on another parameter’s data. In short, the
Examiner’s reasoning is not consistent with how “indirect” processing is
described in, and would be understood in view of, Appellant’s Specification.
Spec. 5:11–17. Thus, the Examiner has not provided articulated reasoning
with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that Jacobs teaches or
suggests the ability “to indirectly determine the pressure of each tire of the
vehicle.” Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 8 and 13, and dependent claims 9 and 10.
Regarding the separate rejection of claims 11 and 12 in view of
Jacobs, Pickering, “and further in view of Ihara” (Final Act. 7), the
Examiner does not employ Ihara in a manner that cures the defect of Jacobs
discussed above. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 11. Accordingly, we likewise do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12 in view of the
additional reference to Ihara.
Appeal 2019-003846
Application 14/376,889

6
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8–10, 13 103(a) Jacobs, Pickering 8–10, 13
11, 12 103(a) Jacobs, Pickering,
Ihara
11, 12
Overall
Outcome
8–13

REVERSED