Ex Parte Burnham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2017

13804016 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2017)

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.
13/804,016 03/14/2013 Randall Scott Burnham 20420.0026USU1 6022
136306 7590 11/22/2017
IR HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
45 South Seventh Street
Suite 2700
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683
EXAMINER
BRAUCH, CHARLES JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2017 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):
ptomail @hsml. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDALL SCOTT BURNHAM, DAVID JON RENKEN,
ERICH ALBERT LUCHT, CULLEN EVAN HALL, ALEC JEFFERY,
and CESAR ARMENGOD VILLALBA
(Applicant: THERMO KING CORPORATION)
Appeal 2016-004285
Application 13/804,016
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thermo King Corporation (Appellant) appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 4—13, and 15—23.1
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Claims 2, 3, and 14 are canceled. Appeal Br. 28, 31 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2016-004285
Application 13/804,016
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “a control system for a multi­
speed generator set.” Spec. 1:13. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 28
(Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of operating a prime mover of a generator set
comprising:
an electronic control unit of the prime mover obtaining
an engine operation condition value of the prime mover;
the electronic control unit transmitting the engine
operation condition value of the prime mover to a controller;
the controller comparing the engine operation condition
value of the prime mover with an engine operation condition
threshold;
the controller instructing the electronic control unit of the
prime mover to operate the prime mover at a first operating
speed when the engine operation condition value of the prime
mover exceeds the engine operation condition threshold; and
the controller instructing the electronic control unit of the
prime mover to operate the prime mover at a second operating
speed that is lower than the first operating speed when the
engine operation condition value of the prime mover is less
than the engine operation condition threshold.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2009/0120699 Al, published May 14,
2009).
2
Appeal 2016-004285
Application 13/804,016
Claims 5, 8, 9—13, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suzuki and Fiveland (US 2007/0251472 Al, published
Nov. 1, 2007).2
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
The Examiner finds that Suzuki discloses all of the steps and elements
of independent claims 1 and 6. Final Act. 2—3. More specifically, the
Examiner finds that Suzuki discloses an electronic control unit (engine ECU
24)3 for a prime mover (engine 22) that obtains and transmits to a controller
(hybrid ECU 70) an engine operation condition value (rotation speed Ne of
engine 22), and the controller comparing the engine operation condition
value with an engine operation condition threshold (target rotation speed
Ne* of engine 22) and instructing the prime mover electronic control unit to
operate the prime mover at a first or second operating speed based on the
comparison. Id. at 2 (citing Suzuki | 60, Fig. 3). The Examiner finds that
“to move from an actual speed to a[] target necessarily requires a
comparison between the start and finish” (id.) and further explains:
FIG. 7 is a curve plot used to calculate a target engine speed
Ne* which relies upon actual torque Te and Rotation Speed
values Ne to obtain the same. Accordingly, to obtain engine
2 Although the heading states that this rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
the body of the rejection makes clear that the rejection is under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
3 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of Suzuki.
3
Appeal 2016-004285
Application 13/804,016
rotational speed the system uses the crankshaft position sensor
140 to measure the number of rotations of the crankshaft 26 and
this information is output to the engine ECU 24 which is then
input into the controller 70 as shown by step 100 of the
algorithm of FIG. 3 and the disclosure of Paragraph 60. Then
the controller 70, as shown by step 120 in the algorithm of FIG.
3, sets a target rotational speed Ne* which is performed by
referencing the target rotational speed Ne* curve of FIG. 7
which must compare the actual rotational speed Ne (the x-axis)
to locate the correct target rotational speed Ne * on the curve
illustrated in FIG. 7 which is referenced by Paragraph 69.
Depending on what the actual rotational speed Ne is, it will
either be above, below, or on the target rotational speed Ne*,
and therefore the engine will have to be sped up, slowed down,
or maintained to meet the target. Thus, the engine speed is
controlled.
Ans. 9-10 (emphasis added). Continuing, the Examiner states:
The mere setting of the target rotational speed Ne* requires a
comparison between the actual engine speed Ne and the target
engine speed Ne* because it requires using the curve of FIG. 7
which has the actual engine speed as it’s x-axis and x-value and
the actual torque as it’s y-axis and y-value. The solid curve
illustrated in FIG. 7 is the target engine speed Ne*. The actual
engine speed Ne will either be located (1) left (2) right or (3) on
that curve. A comparison must be made to determine if the
actual engine speed Ne is left, right, or on the curve in order to
set the proper target rotation speed Ne* as explicitly disclosed
in step 120 of the algorithm of FIG. 3.
Id. at 10—11.
Appellant disagrees, arguing, inter alia, that “[njowhere does Suzuki
disclose or suggest that the hybrid ECU 70 compares the actual rotation
speed Ne with the target rotation speed Ne*. Rather, Suzuki merely sends
the target rotation speed Ne* to the engine ECU 24 for use with a fuel
injection setting map.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further asserts that the
4
Appeal 2016-004285
Application 13/804,016
Examiner’s interpretation “that the hybrid ECU 70 inherently compares the
target rotation speed Ne* to the actual rotation speed Ne . . . contradicts the
explicit disclosure of Suzuki.” Id.
Suzuki discloses that engine ECU 24 receives various data, including
the rotational position of crank shaft 26, from engine 22. Suzuki | 60.
Engine ECU 24 uses this data to control operation of engine 22, and also
“output[s] data regarding the driving conditions of the engine 22 to the
hybrid ECU 70 according to the requirements.” Id. Hybrid ECU 70
receives “various data required for control,” namely “the accelerator opening
Ace . . ., the vehicle speed V . . ., [motor] rotation speeds Nml and Nm2 . . .,
the gearshift position SP . . ., a [battery] charge-discharge power demand
Pb* . . ., and an input limit Win and an output limit Wout of the battery.” Id.
1 68. CPU 72 of hybrid ECU 70 then
sets a torque demand Tr* to be output to the ring gear shaft 32a
or the driveshaft linked with the drive wheels 63a and 63b and
a power demand Pe* required for the engine 22, based on the
input accelerator opening Ace, the input vehicle speed V, and
the input gearshift position SP (step S110).
Id. 1 69 (emphasis added). The engine power demand is then determined
based on set torque demand Tr*:
The power demand Pe* required for the engine 22 is calculated
as the sum of the product of the set torque demand Tr* and a
rotation speed Nr (=Nm2/Gr) of the ring gear shaft 32a, the
charge-discharge power demand Pb* to be charged into or
discharged from the battery 50, and a potential loss.
Id. “The target rotation speed Ne* and the target torque Te* of the engine
22 are subsequently set based on the power demand Pe* for the engine 22.”
Id. (emphasis added). More specifically:
5
Appeal 2016-004285
Application 13/804,016
[T]he target rotation speed Ne* and the target torque Te*
defining a target drive point of the engine 22 are determined
according to an operation curve of ensuring efficient operation
of the engine 22 and a curve of the power demand Pe* ... .
FIG. 7 shows an operation curve of the engine 22 and a
correlation curve of the target torque Te* to the target rotation
speed Ne*. As clearly shown in FIG. 7, the target rotation
speed Ne* and the target torque Te* are given as an intersection
of the operation curve and the correlation curve of constant
power demand Pe* (=Ne*xTe*).
Id. (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s characterization that
“[t]he solid curve illustrated in FIG. 7 is the target engine speed Ne*” (Ans.
10), the solid curve of Figure 7 is an engine operation curve of engine
rotation versus engine torque for efficient engine operation. The point at
which this curve intersects the determined power demand yields target
engine speed Ne*. Because actual engine speed Ne is not a factor used to
determine target engine speed Ne*, we are persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s interpretation of Suzuki.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or its
dependent claims 4 and 15—17 as being anticipated by Suzuki.
Independent claim 6 recites a generator set having recitations similar
to those of claim 1, including a controller that “is configured to generate an
engine operation instruction based on the engine operation condition value.”
Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.). For the same reasons as set forth regarding
the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 or its
dependent claims 7 and 18—20 as being anticipated by Suzuki.
To the extent that the Examiner considers increasing or decreasing the
engine rotation speed to meet the target rotation speed to be an engine
6
Appeal 2016-004285
Application 13/804,016
operation instruction (see, e.g., Final Act. 3), this interpretation similarly
does not satisfy the claim requirements that the controller, not the prime
mover electronic control unit, generates such instruction. See Suzuki | 60.
Obviousness Based on Suzuki
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and claim 8 depends from claim 6.
Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.). Independent claim 9 recites a method having
similar recitations to those of claim 1, including “the controller comparing
the engine operation condition value of the prime mover with an upshift
engine operation condition threshold” and “the controller comparing the
engine operation condition value of the prime mover with a downshift
engine operation condition threshold.” Id. at 30 (Claims App.). The
Examiner’s determination that claims 5, 8, 9—13, 22, and 23 are unpatentable
over Suzuki is based on the same erroneous consideration of Suzuki
discussed above. Final Act. 5—6. For the same reasons as set forth regarding
the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 8, and 9,
as well as claims 10-13, 22, and 23, which depend from claim 9, as being
unpatentable over Suzuki.
Obviousness Based on Suzuki and Fiveland
Claim 21 depends from claim 6. Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.). The
Examiner does not rely on Fiveland in any manner that would remedy the
deficiency noted above with respect to the Examiner’s interpretation of
Suzuki. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 as being
unpatentable over Suzuki and Fiveland.
7
Appeal 2016-004285
Application 13/804,016
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4—13, and 15—23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
8