Ex Parte Cui et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2017

13611428 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 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.
13/611,428 09/12/2012 John X. Cui P019720-PTUS-CD 5733
72823 7590
Quinn IP Law
21500 Haggerty Road
Suite 300
Northville, MI 48167
07/06/2017 EXAMINER
GREENE, DANIEL LAWSON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2017 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):
amb@quinnlawgroup.com
U S Docketing @ quinnlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN X. CUI and RICHARD A. WEAVER
Appeal 2015-007553
Application 13/611,42 8
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and GORDON D. KINDER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John X. Cui and Richard A. Weaver (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haka (US 6,162,144, iss. Dec. 19, 2000), Takahashi (US
2011/0015836 Al, pub. Jan. 20, 2011), and Pohl (US 2012/0238386 Al,
pub. Sept. 20, 2012). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-007553
Application 13/611,428
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of controlling a continuously variable transmission
in a vehicle which is responsive to driver and vehicle inputs and
which has a variator including at least one roller operatively
positioned between an input disk and an output disk so that a
variator speed ratio (VSR) is defined as a ratio of a speed of the
output disk to a speed of the input disk, and a motor to adjust a
position of the roller, comprising:
determining a desired VSR based on at least one of the
driver and vehicle inputs;
determining a motor position adjustment needed to adjust
the position of the roller to achieve the desired VSR;
driving the motor based on the determined motor position
adjustment needed;
sensing a transmission output speed as the motor is being
driven;
determining an actual VSR as the motor is being driven;
and
providing closed-loop feedback corresponding to any
difference between the actual VSR and the desired VSR and
driving the motor to eliminate the difference between the actual
VSR and the desired VSR, thereby achieving the desired VSR.
DISCUSSION
Each of the independent claims defines a variator speed ratio (VSR)
as “a ratio of a speed of the output disk to a speed of the input disk.” Appeal
Br. 23—25 (Claims App.). Each of these claims further requires
“determining an actual VSR as the motor is being driven.” Id. Thus, we
understand that the actual VSR, as defined by the claims, can only be
determined by determining the speed of the output disk and the speed of the
input disk.
2
Appeal 2015-007553
Application 13/611,428
The Examiner finds that Haka teaches
a continuously variable transmission (CVT) . . . which has a
variator including at least one roller (126, 128) operatively
positioned between an input disk (114) and an output disk (164)
so that a variator speed ratio (VSR) is defined as a ratio of a speed
of the output disk to a speed of the input disk.
Final Act. 5.
Appellants contend that “[t]he Examiner’s statements that Haka
teaches ‘a variator speed ratio is defined as a ratio of a speed of the output
disk to a speed of the input disk’ and ‘determining a desired VSR’ are
merely conclusory and are not factually supported by Haka’s disclosure.”
Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). In support of this contention, Appellants
note that “[t]he word ‘speed’ does not appear in Haka’s description,” “[t]he
term ‘variator speed ratio’ does not appear in Haka’s description,” and that
“Haka does not disclose, and the Examiner fails to identify, a means to
determine the speed of the output disk or a means to determine the speed of
the input disk.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue that “Haka’s
system does not sense the speed of either of the input o[r] output disks of
Haka’s variator, so it is physically not possible for Haka to determine a
VSR ‘defined by the ratio of a speed of the output and input disks.’” Id.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner finds that “Haka not only
teaches a variator speed ratio (VSR) but also the capability of applying
sufficient force to maintain that ratio to prevent detrimental ‘slippage’ (Col.
1 lines 12-43) which establishes the ‘variator speed ratio.’” Ans. 3^4
(emphasis omitted).
In column 1, Haka states:
Toric or toroidal-type traction drive transmissions transmit
torque from one rotating semi-toroidal member or disc to another
semi-toroidal member or disc by roller members through a
3
Appeal 2015-007553
Application 13/611,428
traction force. The roller members are supported on a traction
fluid oil film through which the traction force is transmitted. A
force which creates a normal force between the rollers and the
discs urges the discs toward each other. The traction force
divided by the normal force defines a coefficient of traction. The
rollers and discs have a maximum allowable normal force,
determined by Hertzian contact stresses, which limits the input
torque to the toric drive. The input torque to the transmission
will be maintained below a value determined by the Hertzian
contact stresses such that the normal force is within a safe range.
The maximum input torque equals the product of the
radius of the contact point on the input disc, the normal force and
the maximum coefficient of traction of the traction fluid. If the
input torque exceeds this value, detrimental slippage will occur
between the discs and the rollers which can significantly damage
the transmission. To prevent this from occurring, the normal
force and traction force must be controlled to maintain the
coefficient of traction below the maximum allowable value.
Traction drives have employed various strategies to
control the normal force between the rollers and the discs. One
such strategy is to apply hydraulic pressure to force the discs
axially toward the roller. This permits much flexibility in
controlling the ratio of normal force to traction force. However,
this requires a control system that can determine the input torque,
the speed ratio of the traction drive and the maximum possible
coefficient of traction for all operating conditions.
Haka 1:12-43.
Although, this portion of Haka discusses slippage and speed ratio of
the traction drive1, it does not explain how such slippage corresponds to the
claimed variator speed ratio (VSR), which is defined as “a ratio of a speed of
1 We note that the Examiner does not find that Haka’s speed ratio of the
traction drive is equivalent to the claimed variator speed ratio, nor is it
readily apparent that this is the case. Further, even assuming that Haka’s
speed ratio of the traction drive is somehow related to the claimed variator
speed ratio, the Examiner does not explain what the relationship between
these ratios is; and, if such relationship exists how it can be used to
determine the claimed variator speed ratio.
4
Appeal 2015-007553
Application 13/611,428
the output disk to a speed of the input disk.” The Examiner further directs
our attention to column 7, lines 5—17 which describe:
an electronic control unit (ECU) which includes a conventional
programmable digital computer. When the solenoid 190 is
energized, the valve 188 is positioned as shown. When the
solenoid 192 is energized, the valve 188 is moved such that the
passage 172 is connected with the passage 162 and the passage
194 is connected with the passage 160. Thus, the high and low
pressures operating on the pistons 138 and 150 are switched. The
high pressure on the pistons 138 and 150 is manipulated to cause
the pistons 138 and 150 to urge the rollers 126 and 128 to
translate in the toroid chambers to cause a change in the ratio of
the traction drive 112. When the new ratio is achieved, the
pressure ratio is maintained to provide the desired traction force.
Id. at 7:5—17. However, this portion of Haka is also directed to the speed
ratio of the traction drive, not the claimed variator speed ratio. The other
portions of Haka to which the Examiner directs our attention (Ans. 4—5) also
do not explain how Haka meets the limitations pertaining to a variator speed
ratio as defined by the claims. Thus, the Examiner’s finding is not supported
by a preponderance of the evidence. Neither Takahashi nor Pohl cure this
deficiency in the rejection.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 7, and 13, and claims 2—6, 8—12, and 14—18, which depend
therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—18 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
5