Ex Parte Grider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2017

12858112 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 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.
12/858,112 08/17/2010 Duane M. Grider 83156933 5202
28395 7590 04/26/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER RAMESH, KRISHNAN
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DUANE M. GRIDER and
BRUCE CARVELL BLAKEMORE
Appeal 2015-006405
Application 12/858,112
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
3, 6—8, and 12—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-006405
Application 12/858,112
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and system for determining a
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle expected drive range. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle comprising:
an engine and electric machine each configured to
generate motive power for the vehicle;
a battery configured to store energy for the electric
machine;
a tank configured to store fuel for the engine; and
one or more controllers configured to output a vehicle
drive range based on an available charge depletion energy in the
battery for operating in charge depleting mode and an amount of
fuel in the tank.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yamada US 6,793,027 B1 Sept. 21,2004
Saitou US 2007/0029121 A1 Feb. 8, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Saitou.
Claims 3, 6—8, and 14 are rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saitou and Yamada.
OPINION
We understand each of the independent claims before us, claims 1, 6,
and 12 to require outputting (claim 6) or a controller configured to output
2
Appeal 2015-006405
Application 12/858,112
(claims 1 and 12) a drive range that is based on both “available charge
depletion energy in the battery for operating in charge depleting mode and
an amount of fuel in the tank.” The Examiner relies on paragraphs 48, 51
and 52 of Saitou regarding this limitation. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4—5. It is not
clear why the Examiner relies on paragraph 48 and Figure 3 of Saitou (Final
Act. 4) which relate to the usage range of the battery during travel and not
any “drive range” of a vehicle as required by the claims. Insofar as
providing a “vehicle drive range” is concerned, Saitou first discloses
calculating a travelable distance based on the battery capacity state of charge
(“SOC”) when in electric power travel mode (para. 51) and next discloses a
“fuel travelable distance calculation” that is based on “the remaining fuel
and the battery capacity SOC for traveling” (para. 52). The Examiner does
not make it clear exactly which range calculation is relied upon for meeting
the limitation in question. As noted above, the “a vehicle drive range”
limitation requires one range output based on two factors and is not satisfied
by two distinct range calculations, to the extent the Examiner takes that
position.
The Examiner appears to correctly recognize that one skilled in the art
would understand the limitation “available charge depletion energy in the
battery for operating in charge depleting mode” to cover Saitou’s “electric
power travel mode,” in which battery power is used as the sole source of
propulsion. See Ans. 5 (“For clarification, when the vehicle depends on
energy from the battery for propulsion (during which time the drive range of
the vehicle is being calculated), the vehicle is effectively in a charge
depletion mode, since charge in the battery is depleting.”); see also Saitou
para. 21. However, for the calculation made regarding electric power travel
3
Appeal 2015-006405
Application 12/858,112
mode, Saitou does not mention basing the travelable distance calculated, i.e.,
the “vehicle drive range,” on the “amount of fuel in the tank” as required by
the claims. Saitou para. 51. Insofar as Saitou’s “fuel travelable distance
calculation” is concerned (para. 52), as Appellants correctly point out,
“battery capacity SOC for traveling” as used in that calculations is expressly
defined by Saitou as being obtained by “subtracting the engine starting
power amount from the current battery capacity SOC.” App. Br. 3^4
(emphasis omitted) (citing Saitou para. 55); see also Saitou Fig. 2, step
S214. Thus, in calculating the “fuel travelable distance” Saitou only appears
to take into account the energy needed from the battery to start the engine as
opposed to the energy available for propelling the vehicle in Saitou’s electric
power travel mode, which, as noted above, the Examiner appears to regard
as the recited “charge depleting mode.” Saitou paras. 52, 55.
The Examiner concludes the Answer with a general assertion that
“charge depletion energy” is broader than Appellants argue. Ans. 5.
However, the only express finding made by the Examiner concerning “an
available charge depletion energy in the battery for operating in charge
depleting mode” is that quoted above. That statement indicates that both the
Examiner and Appellants are considering the state in which “the vehicle
depends on energy from the battery for propulsion” as the “charge depleting
mode” making the “available charge depletion energy” the energy available
for the purpose of propulsion via the battery alone. See Saitou para. 21. The
Examiner does not propose any alternative interpretations or findings for
purposes of this appeal.
4
Appeal 2015-006405
Application 12/858,112
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not established anticipation based on Saitou. Yamada is not
relied upon by the Examiner to account for the deficiencies discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
5