Ex Parte Perkins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2015

12409657 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2015)

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