Ex Parte Sangameswaran et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201613204748 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/204,748 08/08/2011 28395 7590 09/27/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sangeetha Sangameswaran 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. 83181155 1649 EXAMINER FE!, JORDAN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2016 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 SANGEETHA SANGAMESW ARAN, KIRK PEBLEY, KEVIN ROY HARPENAU, ERIC MICHAEL RADEMACHER, and DAVID CELINSKE Appeal2014-009292 Application 13/204,748 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Laker (WO 99/50097, pub. Oct. 7, 1999), Moriya (US 2007/0075584 Al, pub. Apr. 5, 2007), and Moran (US 2007/0124037 Al, pub. May 31, 2007). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-009292 Application 13/204, 7 48 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to "turning on" electrical subsystems during a hybrid vehicle internal combustion engine auto start. Spec. i-fi-f l, 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for controlling a plurality of vehicle electrical load subsystems comprising: during an auto start of an engine, enabling a first subset of the subsystems when a value of a vehicle operating parameter falls with a first predefined range of values, and enabling a second subset of the subsystems when the value of the parameter falls within a second predefined range of values. OPINION Appellants argue claims 1-17 as a group. Appeal Br. 2-3. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). The Examiner finds that Laker teaches a method for controlling a plurality of vehicle electrical load subsystems during engine start. Final Action 3. The Examiner further finds that Laker enables a first subset of subsystems when a vehicle operating parameter falls within a first predefined range of values, and enables a second subset of the subsystems. Id. However, as Laker does not explicitly teach an auto start, the Examiner relies on Moran as teaching that it is known that vehicle accessories can tum off during an auto stop. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Laker device to function during an auto-start. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to make a vehicle more energy efficient. Id. 2 Appeal2014-009292 Application 13/204, 7 48 'T't. TI " 1" l\,f" 1." " " " •• i ue uxammer re1ies on iVlonya as teacumg assigmng pnonties to a plurality of subsystems to determine the order in which they are powered on. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Laker to enable subsystems in accordance with predetermined priority based on available voltage. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to allow more important subsystems to be switched on prior to less important ones when energy is available. Id. Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Laker with Moriya and Moran. Appeal Br. 2-3. Appellants argue that Laker is concerned with electrical loads on the battery when electrical loads are left on accidentally or unnecessarily when the user leaves the vehicle for a long time. Id. at 3. According to Appellants, the problem solved by Laker does not occur during an auto stop. Id. In response, the Examiner states that Laker teaches enabling a first subset of subsystems when the voltage falls within a first prescribed range and enables a second subset of subsystems when the voltage falls within a second prescribed range. Ans. 3 (citing Laker 11: 16-27). The Examiner states that Moran teaches that electrical subsystems shut down and start-up during an auto-stop/auto-start. Id. The Examiner states that Moriya activates electrical subsystems in accordance with a priority scheme depending on available voltage. Id. The Examiner supports the comb inability of the references by pointing out that Laker's voltage corresponds to one of the parameters in Appellants' application. According 3 Appeal2014-009292 Application 13/204, 7 48 to the Examiner, ~v1oran teaches shut-down and start-up of devices sequentially according to a voltage parameter. Id. In reply, Appellants accuse the Examiner of mischaracterizing Moran. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that Moran maintains subsystem operation during engine shut-down. Id. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Laker with the teachings of Moriya and Moran to achieve the claimed invention. Appellants' argument that Laker is concerned with electrical loads on a battery when the loads are left on accidentally is not persuasive. It is well settled that "a reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012), citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418--421 (2007). "Common sense teaches ... that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Laker's teaching of alleviating electrical loads during engine start would have practical application beyond situations where a vehicle operator accidentally leaves electrical loads connected. Appellants argue that Moran teaches maintaining subsystem operation during engine shut-down. Reply Br. 2. Appellants direct our attention to paragraph 6 where Moran discloses that it merely turns off fuel supply to the engine, but otherwise maintains engine rotation during vehicle stops. Id. (quoting Moran i-f 6). Paragraph 6 further explains that gear and/or pulley/belt power take-off driven accessories are maintained in operation even though engine combustion ceases. Moran i-f 6. However, elsewhere, Moran discloses that spinning the engine to drive the power take-off 4 Appeal2014-009292 Application 13/204, 7 48 accessories is optional. Id. lf 38, Fig. 4. A person of ordina1y skill in the art reading Moran would have understood that, when power from the internal combustion engine is not available due to engine shut-down (whether or not the engine continues to spin because it is driven from another power source) the electrical load of the accessories must either be turned off or carried by an alternative power source, such as a battery. 1 Moran discloses that in "typical" hybrid drive vehicle applications, turning off the engine causes vehicle subsystems to be turned off. See Moran i-f 3. We view the Examiner's rejection as relying on paragraph 3 of Moran for a teaching that vehicle subsystems are turned off upon engine shut-down. Final Action 3 (citing Moran i-f 3). The Examiner finds that, in a typical vehicle where subsystems are turned off upon engine shut-down, it is inherent that re-starting the engine will cause the subsystems to tum back on. Ans. 3. Appellants present no evidence or technical reasoning that tends to show that the Examiner's findings based on Moran, including those based on principles of inherency, are in error. Instead, Appellants focus our attention on an optional embodiment of Moran in paragraph 6 that differs from the "typical" situation discussed in paragraph 3. We agree with the Examiner that Laker discloses a vehicle electrical system where first and second subsets of electrical subsystems are isolated and reconnected in response to monitored and available voltage. Final Action 3, Laker pp. 18-24. We also agree with the Examiner that Moriya teaches detecting requests for electrical loads and prioritizing activation and 1 Indeed, Appellants' Specification acknowledges that: "The battery 16 may provide electrical current to the electrical load subsystems 18 while the engine 12 is stopped." Spec. i-f 11. 5 Appeal2014-009292 Application 13/204, 7 48 operation of load circuits. Final Action 3--4, ~v1oriya lf 20. ~v1oran is relied on only for the principle that turning electrical subsystems on and off may be associated with turning the internal combustion engine of a hybrid vehicle on and off. Final Act. 3; Moran i-fi-13, 6. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that starting an internal combustion engine using, for example, an electric start motor, places a load on a vehicle electrical system. To the extent that the load placed on the electrical system, by simultaneously engaging a starter motor and a plurality of vehicle electrical accessories, exceeds the available battery power or other available energy, it would have been obvious to reduce the load by turning off various accessories. To the extent that is unnecessary to tum off all accessories, a person of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the combined teachings of Laker and Mori ya, would have found it obvious to prioritize among subsystems, among other things, in accordance with how essential a particular subsystem is to operation of the vehicle. It is well settled that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417. Appellants' invention merely uses the technique of isolating electrical subsystems to manage the load on an overall vehicle electrical system and applies that technique to the specific application of electrical power consumption to internal combustion engine auto-start in a hybrid vehicle. KSR counsels that such an improvement is an obvious one. 6 Appeal2014-009292 Application 13/204, 7 48 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 1-1 7. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation