Ex Parte Liang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

13347768 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/347,768 01/11/2012
28395 7590 09/21/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei Liang
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.
83197121 9225
EXAMINER
CHEN, SHELLEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI LIANG, HAI YU, RYAN ABRAHAM McGEE,
MING LANG KUANG, and ANTHONY MARK PHILLIPS
Appeal2018-001709 1
Application 13/347,7682
Technology Center 3600
Before KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1--4, 6-9, and 15-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Apr. 21,
2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 5, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 16, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Nov. 18, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001709
Application 13/347 ,768
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the Specification "relates to an electronic
control system that increases vehicle stability by minimizing the tendency of
a vehicle to spin." Spec. ,r 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A stability control system for a vehicle comprising:
a brake controller configured to, based on a received
instability signal, provide a brake force to a first wheel; and
a motor controller configured to, based on the instability
signal, provide a motor torque to a second wheel on an opposite
side of the first wheel wherein the brake and motor signals are
provided in a coordinated time sequence.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-9, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Ash3 in view ofNakatsu. 4
DISCUSSION
As discussed below, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 15.
With respect to claims 1 and 15, the Examiner finds that Ash teaches a
stability control system as claimed, except that "Ash does not explicitly
disclose that the motor controller receives the torque increase request signal
from the brake controller, or that the brake and motor signals are provided in
3 Ash et al., US 2012/0150376 Al, pub. June 14, 2012.
4 Nakatsu et al., US 2013/0173127 Al, pub. July 4, 2013.
2
Appeal2018-001709
Application 13/347 ,768
a coordinated time sequence." Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted). Regarding
the requirement that the brake and motor signals are provided in a
coordinated time sequence, the Examiner relies on Nakatsu. Id. at 4 ( citing
Nakatsu Figs. 10, 11; ,r,r 47, 110).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to adequately
explain how Nakatsu teaches providing braking and motor signals in a
coordinated time sequence. See Appeal Br. 3--4. Notably, the Examiner
neither provides an explanation regarding the cited portions of Nakatsu in
the rejection nor does the Examiner explain how Nakatsu is being relied
upon to teach the use of a coordinated time sequence in response to
Appellants' arguments. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3. In response to
Appellants' arguments, the Examiner states that "[ t ]he coordinated time
sequence is clearly shown in at least figures 10 and 11 [ofNakatsu]."
Ans. 3. The Examiner also appears to indicate that the coordinated time
sequence is reflected in Nakatsu's title and abstract, "which disclose[]
control/provision of the braking force rather than mere computation of the
braking force." Id. (emphasis omitted). However, without further
explanation from the Examiner, we are only left to guess in what manner the
Examiner is interpreting Nakatsu to teach the claimed "coordinated time
sequence."
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claims 1 and 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 15. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-14, 6-9,
and 16-19, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 15.
3
Appeal2018-001709
Application 13/347 ,768
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1--4, 6-9, and 15-19.
REVERSED
4