Ex Parte Hagari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

13290437 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/290,437 11/07/2011
23373 7590 06/22/2018
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hideki HAGAR!
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.
Ql27485 8573
EXAMINER
LAGUARDA,GONZALO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIDEKI HA GARI, YUHEI MATSUSHIMA, KEIT ARO EZUMI,
and TOMOKUNI KUSUNOKI
Appeal2016-003581
Application 13/290,437 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hideki Hagari et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellants identify Mazda Motor Corporation and Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation as the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2016-003581
Application 13/290,437
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced
below.
1. An internal combustion engine control apparatus for
controlling output of an internal combustion engine,
compnsmg:
an operation status value detection unit that detects two
or more different kinds of operation status values indicating an
operation status of the internal combustion engine;
a filtering processing unit that applies filtering processing
to the detected two or more different kinds of operation status
values;
an operation status value difference calculation unit that
calculates the difference between the filter-processed operation
status value and the corresponding non-filter-processed
operation status value so as to calculate two or more operation
status value differences;
an operation status value difference normalization unit
that normalizes the two or more operation status value
differences, based on predetermined reference values for the
two or more different kinds of operation status values, so as to
calculate two or more normalized operation status value
differences; and
a transient correction unit that corrects a control amount
for controlling output of the internal combustion engine, based
on the two or more normalized operation status value
differences, when the internal combustion engine is in a
transient-operation mode.
Appeal Br. 14, Claims App.
2
Appeal2016-003581
Application 13/290,437
Rejections2
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-3, 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Asano (US 7,530,347 B2, iss. May 12, 2009); and
II. Claims 4---6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Asano and Haraguchi (US 4,711,212,
iss. Dec. 8, 1987).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner appears to map each and
every element of claims 1-3, 7, 14, and 17 to Asano. Final Act. 4--6 (mailed
Dec. 12, 2014). Appellants challenge the Examiner's findings questioning
the basis for rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal Br. 7.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner clarifies that the
rejection is based on§ 103(a) because "all the same variables are being
considered by the applied reference and all the same mathematical steps are
being considered. The difference is that the order of the mathematical
principles are being applied differently." Ans. 3. According to the
Examiner, "this is believed to create an obvious variant of the subject matter
contained in the reference." Id.
2 The Examiner initially rejected several claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, but
withdrew the rejection in the Answer. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2016-003581
Application 13/290,437
The Examiner points to what he refers to as "the steps of the claim" as
requiring "a) Detection, b) filter, c) subtraction, d) normalization and
e) operating the engine off these values." Id. The Examiner, inter alia,
points to Asano' s Figure 14 and steps 1410 and 1411 as teaching the
Examiner's identified "'b' and 'c' steps" and Asano's step 1408 as teaching
"[s]tep 'd"' of the claims. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner finds that:
The precise order of operations and each value immediately
being used in the next step is not disclosed by the reference,
which is why the claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a),
but this type of variation is understood to only produce an
equivalent variation of the subject matter that the Asano
reference details.
Id. at 4.
Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding of equivalence, arguing
that it is unsupported on the record because Asano' s step 1408 precedes
steps 1410 and 1411. Reply Br. 5. Appellants explain that "the value
calculated in [Asano' s] step 1408 is required for the calculation performed in
step 1410." Id. at 6. Thus, Appellants contend that, although Asano teaches
"similar processing steps," they are applied to different parameters and the
result "is not merely a change in the ordering of steps or calculations." Id.
As Appellants explain and the Examiner agrees, Asano teaches a
different order of application. The Examiner finds that "this type of
variation is understood to only produce an equivalent variation of the subject
matter." Id. The Examiner, however, fails to provide any reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the claimed subject
matter and Asano are equivalents. This is particularly troubling where the
Examiner acknowledges that Asano' s steps are performed in a different
order and where Asano appears to apply those steps to different parameters
4
Appeal2016-003581
Application 13/290,437
than claimed, but the Examiner fails to explain why, even with those
differences, the subject matter is equivalent. Additionally, the Examiner
fails to provide any reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been prompted to modify Asano to meet the subject matter of the
claims.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 14,
and 17.
Rejection II
In rejecting claims 4---6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-20, the Examiner relies
upon the same findings directed to claim 1. Final Act. 6. Accordingly, for
the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4--6,
8-13, 15, 16, and 18-20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
5