Ex Parte PerkinsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201512409657 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/409,657 03/24/2009 William Paul Perkins 81183935 1796 75141 7590 04/23/2015 DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC 13885 HEDGEWOOD DR., SUITE 317 WOODBRIDGE, VA 22193 EXAMINER NELSON, SARA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/23/2015 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 WILLIAM PAUL PERKINS ____________________ Appeal 2013-002718 Application 12/409,657 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE William Paul Perkins (Appellant)1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a system and method for improving vehicle performance on a grade based on sensed conditions. Spec. 1, ll. 4–7. 1 Appellant indicates that the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2013-002718 Application 12/409,657 2 Claims 1 and 14 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. In a vehicle having a front, rear, left side and right side, a system for improving vehicle performance on a surface oriented at a grade, said system comprising: an engine; a global positioning system for calculating data representing an acceleration of the vehicle; an acceleration sensor for sensing a sum of acceleration due to vehicle acceleration along the grade and a component of gravity along the grade and providing data based on the sensed sum; a controller for determining the grade using the data from the global positioning system and the data from the acceleration sensor, calculating a dynamic weight shift of the vehicle from a first wheel to a second wheel due to the vehicle acceleration, calculating a static weight shift of the vehicle from the first wheel to the second wheel due to the gravity and the grade, and determining a maximum amount of torque that can be transmitted by the first wheel before the first wheel slips; and a torque transfer device for adjusting an amount of torque sent to each of the first and second wheels, whereby slipping of the first wheel is avoided by the controller preemptively by diverting torque from the first wheel to the second wheel through the torque transfer device so that an amount of torque sent to the first wheel is less than the maximum amount of torque. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Brooks US 2004/0054459 A1 Mar. 18, 2004 Lu Breed Yamaguchi Shigeta Sawada US 6,718,248 B2 US 7,085,637 B2 US 7,440,834 B2 US 7,487,028 B2 US 7,577,504 B2 Apr. 6, 2004 Aug. 1, 2006 Oct. 21, 2008 Feb. 3, 2009 Aug. 18, 2009 Appeal 2013-002718 Application 12/409,657 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–4, 14, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sawada, Yamaguchi, and Lu. Final Act. 5. II. Claims 5–8, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sawada, Yamaguchi, Lu, and Breed. Id. at 11. III. Claims 9–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sawada, Yamaguchi, Lu, and Shigeta. Id. at 15. IV. Claims 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sawada, Yamaguchi, Lu, and Brooks. Id. at 16. ANALYSIS Rejection I Independent claim 1 recites “a torque transfer device for adjusting an amount of torque sent to each of the first and second wheels . . . by diverting torque from the first wheel to the second wheel through the torque transfer device.” Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. Similarly, independent method claim 14 recites the step of “preemptively diverting torque from the first wheel through a torque transfer device to the second wheel to avoid slipping of the first wheel.” Id. at 18, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Yamaguchi discloses the recited “torque transfer device” of claims 1 and 14. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Yamaguchi, col. 10, l. 21–col. 11, l. 67). Appellant contends that neither Yamaguchi (nor Sawada and Lu) disclose any mechanism that transfers torque from one wheel to another. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the Appeal 2013-002718 Application 12/409,657 4 claim term “torque transfer device” to encompass Yamaguchi’s “drive force distribution system implemented in controller 8” is unreasonable—torque from Yamaguchi’s motors 11, 12, 13, and 14 does not travel through Yamaguchi’s controller. Id. at 8. In response, the Examiner explains that Yamaguchi discloses that the controller 8 determines that a condition exists with “a great tendency towards wheel slippage” and, based on this determination, the controller 8 recalculates and redistributes the brake/drive force of each wheel to control motors 11 to 14. Answer 2–3. In reply, Appellant argues that Yamaguchi’s controller does not redistribute or divert brake/drive force from one wheel to another. Reply Br. 2. Instead, Appellant asserts, the controller sends a signal to an individual wheel motor that adjusts the amount of brake/drive force delivered by that motor to its associated wheel, independently of the amount of brake/drive force delivered by other wheel motors to their associated wheels. Id. We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Claim 1 requires a controller to divert torque from a first wheel to a second wheel through a torque transfer device. Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. Similarly, the method of claim 14 requires the step of diverting torque from the first wheel through a torque transfer device. Id. at 18. As Appellant correctly states, Yamaguchi’s system does not divert torque from one wheel to another such that the diverted torque is transferred through a torque transfer device. See Reply Br. 3. Instead, Yamaguchi’s controller 8 adjusts the amount of torque supplied by individual motors 11, 12, 13, and 14—each motor associated with one of the four wheels of the vehicle. See id. at 2; see also Yamaguchi, Abstract (“[T]he drive force revising section revises the brake/drive forces . . . based on the sensitivities of the tire lateral forces of each of the wheels Appeal 2013-002718 Application 12/409,657 5 estimated by the tire lateral force sensitivity estimating section so as to satisfy the motion requirements of the vehicle.”); Yamaguchi col. 11, ll. 51– 56 (“[T]he electric current command values issued to the inverters 31 to 34 are controlled such that the output torque of each of the motors 11 to 14 is adjusted to the . . . torque command value for that motor.”). Because Yamaguchi’s system employs individual motors associated with each wheel, torque—the actual twisting force causing rotation—is not diverted2 from one wheel to another. Accordingly, Yamaguchi’s system does not divert torque from one wheel to another, with that diverted torque being transferred through a torque transfer device, as required by claims 1 and 14. For the reasons above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sawada, Yamaguchi, and Lu. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–4 and 18–20, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 or 14. Rejections II, III, and IV Each of the Rejections II, III, and IV rely on the Examiner’s finding that Yamaguchi’s system diverts torque through a torque transfer device. Further, the additional prior art references relied on by the Examiner in Rejections II, III, and IV do not remedy the deficiency in Yamaguchi’s disclosure discussed above in connection with Rejection I. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 5–8, 12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sawada, 2 We interpret “divert” in keeping with its ordinary meaning as “reallocate . . . to a different purpose.” Oxford Dictionaries, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/divert (last visited Apr. 10, 2015). Appeal 2013-002718 Application 12/409,657 6 Yamaguchi, Lu, and Breed; claims 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sawada, Yamaguchi, Lu, and Shigeta; and claims 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sawada, Yamaguchi, Lu, and Brooks. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20. REVERSED cda Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation