Ex Parte Han

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 6, 2012

11391795 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ED E. HAN
__________

Appeal 2010-001530
Application 11/391,795
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-001530
Application 11/391,795

- 2 -
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19. Claims 7, 14, and 20 have been
allowed. (App. Br. 3.) These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Tsuzuki (US 5,903,061; published May 11, 1999)
in view of Takami (US 2004/0152558; published Aug. 5, 2004).
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential).
We reverse.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A transmission control system for a hybrid electric
vehicle including an electric machine, comprising:
an energy storage device that is selectively charged by
said electric machine and that selectively powers said electric
machine;
a driver input device that generates a driver input signal;
and
a control module that receives said driver input signal,
that determines a torque load of said electric machine based on
a state of charge (SOC) of said energy storage device and that
determines a transmission ratio based on said torque load and
said driver input signal.

CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues that the claim term “torque load” refers, for
example, to the torque demanded or actually drawn by a load (App. Br. 6.),
Appeal 2010-001530
Application 11/391,795

- 3 -
and to the “load of the electric machine attributable to driving torque and
charging torque” (Reply Br. 3 (citing Specification ¶¶ 0018-0020)).
Appellant contrasts the claim term ‘torque load” with Takami’s term
“outputable motor torque.” (App. Br. 6-7.) Appellant urges that Takami’s
“outputable motor torque” alternatively refers to a torque load limit, i.e., a
potential or maximum achievable torque load. (Id.) In support of this
interpretation of the claimed torque load, Appellant summarizes the
invention’s exemplary determination of a torque load as follows:
In the context of the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 1,
paragraph [0017] states that control module 22 determines a
state of charge (SOC) of an energy storage device 18 based on
current and voltage signals. A moving average charge power
(PSOC) is determined based on the SOC, and the moving average
charge power is used to determine an electrical load grade (N).
(See paragraphs [0019]-[0020]). A torque load (TEL) of an
electric machine 14 is determined based on the electrical load
grade (i.e., N) and a loading radius of the wheel (rLOAD). (See
paragraph [0020]).
(App. Br. 5-6.)
The Examiner responds that “even if the outputable motor torque of
TAKAMI et al. were a maximum torque output limit, which is not disclosed
by TAKAMI et al., the limitations of claim 1 would still be met by
TSUZUKI et al. in view of TAKAMI et al.” (Ans. 7-8.)

ISSUES
Does Tsuzuki’s system, as modified in view of Takami, determine a
“torque load” of an electric machine based on an SOC of an energy storage
device as claimed?
Appeal 2010-001530
Application 11/391,795

- 4 -
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination, claim terms are given a broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s Specification. See Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

ANALYSIS
“Load” ordinarily means a “quantity borne or sustained by something;
burden.” Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 1126 (2d ed.
2001). In the technical arts, “load” means “any of the forces that a structure
is calculated to oppose.” Id. And in the mechanical arts, “load” means
“external resistance overcome by an engine, dynamo, or the like.” Id. In
light of these meanings, it is clear that a load is an amount of force or
resistance opposed by a device.
As reflected by Appellant’s explanation of how the disclosed
invention determines a torque load (TEL) (see block quote, supra), that
determination is based on the amounts of torque that are actually opposed by
the motor; not based on the maximum potential amounts of torque that could
be opposed by the motor, i.e., torque load limits. A skilled artisan would
therefore understand the claimed torque load as encompassing only an actual
torque load of the motor. The Examiner has not presented adequate
evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claimed
torque load more broadly as also encompassing a torque load limit of the
motor.
Takami’s outputable motor torque is not an actual torque load
opposed by the motor, but rather the maximum amount of drive shaft torque
that the motor can oppose to offset an unwanted rise in the engine’s output
Appeal 2010-001530
Application 11/391,795

- 5 -
(Abstract; ¶ [0074]). Tsuzuki’s motor also opposes drive shaft torque to
offset an unwanted rise in the engine’s output (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 59-66).
The suggested modification of Tsuzuki’s teachings – as suggested by
Takami’s cited teaching that the motor’s torque load limit (“outputable
motor torque”) is constrained by the battery’s state of charge (Ans. 4 (citing
Takami ¶ [0074])) – simply adds a step of determining the torque load limit
of Tsuzuki’s motor based on the connected battery’s state of charge. The
added determination of a torque load limit is not a determination of a torque
load as claimed.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7, 8, and 15,
which also recite the term “torque load;” or (3) claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19
which depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 is
reversed.

REVERSED

rwk