14176293 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

Ex Parte Arnold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 2018

14176293 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/176,293 02/10/2014 278 7590 MICHAEL J. STRIKER Collard & Roe, P.C. 1077 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 08/21/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Roland Arnold 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. 5214 1207 EXAMINER SHUDY, ANGELINA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/21/2018 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 ROLAND ARNOLD and GEORG KOTROTSIOS Appeal2017-008835 Application 14/17 6,293 1 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges. KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Office action rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-10,2 the only pending claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, Paravan GmbH, the Applicant under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.46, is the real party in interest. Br. 4. 2 Claim 6 was canceled. Br. 24 (Claims App'x.). Appeal2017-008835 Application 14/176,293 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a circuit for controlling acceleration, braking, and steering of a vehicle. Spec. p. 2, 11. 8-9. Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain language, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A circuit for controlling acceleration, braking and steering of a vehicle having at least two separate motors for actuating an acceleration and braking system, at least two separate motors for actuating the steering system and at least one electronic control unit for controlling the at least two separate motors for actuating the acceleration and braking system and the at least two separate motors for actuating the steering system, the at least one control unit comprising three identical CPUs; and a programmable logic component; wherein each of the three identical computer processing units (CPUs) generates control signals for the at least two separate acceleration and braking system motors and at least two steering system motors depending on input control signals and on sensor signals of the at least two separate acceleration and braking system motors and the at least two steering system motors, forwards the generated control signals to each other of the three identical CPUs, compares the generated control signals received from the each other of the three identical CPUs with the generated control signals and, forwards the generated control signals and the CPU compare results to the programmable logic component; and wherein the programmable logic component is programmed to process the generated control signals and the CPU compare results generated by the three identical CPUs, select one of the three identical CPUs determined to be most trustworthy based on the processing and forwards the control signals of the selected CPU to the at least two separate acceleration and braking system motors and the at least two 2 Appeal2017-008835 Application 14/176,293 steering system motors thereby ensuring secured control of the acceleration and braking and the steering system. Br. 23-24 ( Claims App 'x.) ( emphasis added). REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: I. Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Weldin (US 2008/0147247 Al, published June 19, 2008) and J. Christmansson et al., Dependable flight control system by data diversity and self-checking components, Microprocessing and Microprogramming, vol. 40, pp. 207-222 (1994) ("Christmansson"). II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Weldin, Christmansson, and Gale (US 2012/0210198 Al, published Aug. 16, 2012). III. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Weldin, Christmansson, and Hirata (US 6,807,477 B2, issued Oct. 19, 2004). Claim 1 OPINION Rejection I-The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 8-10 under 35 US.C. Â§ 103 over Weldin and Christmansson Claim 1 requires each of the three computer processing units (CPUs) to (1) generate control signals, (2) forward its generated control signals to each of the other identical CPUs, and (3) compare its generated control signals with the control signals received from each of the other CPUs to create "CPU compare results." Br. 23-24 (Claims App'x.). The generated 3 Appeal2017-008835 Application 14/176,293 control signals and the CPU compare results are then forwarded by each CPU to the programmable logic component. Id. The Examiner finds that Weldin discloses a circuit for controlling acceleration, braking, and steering including, inter alia, a control unit having at least three CPUs that generate control signals. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner also finds that Weldin discloses a programmable logic component. Id. at 6 (citing Weldin ,r 7). The Examiner determines that Weldin does not disclose three identical CPUs that each generates control signals and compares its generated signals with the signals received from the other CPUs. Id. at 7-8. The Examiner relies upon Christmansson to teach the three identical CPUs, each of which allegedly generates control signals, forwards its generated control signals to each of the other identical CPUs, and compares its generated signals with the signals received from the other CPUs. Id. at 8. In particular, the Examiner finds that Christmansson teaches three identical CPUs or Guidance Navigation Computers (GNCs) that generate control signals based on sensor signals. Id. ( citing Christmansson Fig. 1; p. 208, col. 2; p. 209, col. 1 ). According to the Examiner, Christmansson teaches the "forwards" and "compares" steps in that, in Christmansson, "input data from the sensors are exchanged between the GNCs via the ICN" (inter GNC network) and "output data for the actuators will be exchanged between the GNCs via the ICN." Id. (citing Christmansson p. 209, col. 1; Fig. 1 ). Appellants argue that Christmansson does not teach that each of the GNCs compares its own control signal with the control signals received from the other GNCs, as required by claim 1. Br. 1 7. Appellants explain that in Christmansson, the GNCs send their output data to the servo 4 Appeal2017-008835 Application 14/176,293 electronic units and then a simple exact voter VA chooses the one servo electronics unit to control the actuators. Id. at 18. Appellants contend that the GNCs do not compare their generated control signals with the control signals received from the other GNCs. Id. In reply, the Examiner notes that Christmansson teaches that the GNCs acquire, select, and exchange input data from the sensors via the inter GNC network for control computation and the output data is exchanged via the inter GNC network. Ans. 3 (citing Christmansson p. 208, col. 2; p. 209, col. 1 ). The Examiner concludes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the GNCs forward generated control signals to each other and compare their generated control signals to those received from each other "because 'input data from the sensors are exchanged between the GNCs' for the control computations and the 'output data for the actuators will be exchanged between the GNCs via the ICN. "' Id. at 3--4 ( citing Christmansson p. 209 col. 1, Fig. 1: Flight control system architecture). We first address Christmansson's disclosure that "[i]nput data from the sensors are exchanged between the GNCs via the ICN." Christmansson p. 209, col. 1. We appreciate that Christmansson's GNCs share input data, however, the sensor input data is not the same as generated control signals and the Examiner has not explained how the sensor input data could be considered the same as a generated control signal. As Christmansson explains, the input data is acquired from the sensors and is shared with the GNCs. Christmansson p. 209, col. 1. Sensor input data is just that, sensor data. The GNCs use the input data from the sensors to generate a control signal. See id. Thus, even though sensor data is exchanged between the GNCs, the sensor data is not a generated control signal. Moreover, even if 5 Appeal2017-008835 Application 14/176,293 the input data could be considered the same as a generated control signal, the Examiner has not shown that the recited comparison occurs. We tum now to Christmansson's disclosure that "[o]utput data for the actuators will be exchanged between the GNCs via the ICN." Id. Even assuming that this disclosure addresses the "forwards" step in claim 1, the Examiner has not shown that Christmansson addresses the claimed "compares" step. Restated a little differently, the "output data" in Christmansson is exchanged between the GNCs, but the Examiner has not explained how the cited passages of Christmansson teach that each of the GNCs compares its generated control signals to the control signals received from the other CPUs. As Appellants note, the cited passages of Christmansson disclose sending output data to the servo electronics and using a simple exact voter to choose the servo electronics unit to control the actuators. Br. 18, see also Christmansson, p. 209, col. 2. The Examiner does not explain, however, how this voting process would be the same as the "compares" step. Without an explanation of how the disclosed voting equates to the recited comparing, the cited portions of Christmansson do not support the rejection. Moreover, the voting in Christmansson is done within the servo electronics unit while the "compares" step must be performed by each of the CPUs. The Examiner does not explain why voting performed in the servo electronics units would equate to comparing done by the CPUs. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's finding that Weldin and Christmansson, in combination, teach that each CPU compares its generated control signal to the control signals 6 Appeal2017-008835 Application 14/176,293 received from the other CPUs. See Final Act. 6-9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Weldin and Christmansson. Claims 3-5, and 8-10 Claims 3-5 and 8 depend from claim 1. Br. 24--25 (Claims App'x.). Claim 9 is independent but contains limitations similar to claim 1, compare Br. 23-24 (Claims App'x.), with id. at 25-26 (Claims App'x.) and claim 10 depends from claim 9, id. at 26 (Claims App'x.). The Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and reasoning based on Weldin and Christmansson, discussed above, regarding claim 1 (see supra Rejection I). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-5 and 8-10. Rejection II-The rejection of claim 2 under 35 USCÂ§ 103 over Weldin, Christmansson, and Gale Claim 2 depends upon claim 1. Br. 24 (Claims App'x.). Gale does not cure the deficiencies of Weldin and Christmansson as to claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2. Rejection III-The rejection of claim 7 under 35 USCÂ§ 103 over Weldin, Christmansson, and Hirata Claim 7 depends upon claim 1. Br. 25 (Claims App'x.). Hirata does not cure the deficiencies of Weldin and Christmansson as to claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7. 7 Appeal2017-008835 Application 14/176,293 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5 and 7- 10 are reversed. REVERSED 8