Ex Parte Houtman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 23, 2009

11114756 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEVEN T. HOUTMAN, JOSEPH ROY, and MARK
THOMPSON
____________

Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: 1 June 23, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steven T. Houtman et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16, 19, and 20. Claims 17
and 18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ invention is drawn towards a system and a process
for preventing chain jump in a drivetrain of a four-wheel drive vehicle,
including receiving sensed vehicle parameters from sensors in the four-
wheel drive vehicle, generating transfer case chain jump parameters based
on the sensed vehicle parameters, and initiating disengagement of a clutch
pack in response to the generated transfer case chain jump parameters.
Specification 2, ¶ [0005].
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. A method to prevent chain jump over a tooth of a
sprocket in a transfer case of a four-wheel drive vehicle,
the transfer case having a chain drive that couples a
respective front and rear driveshaft sprocket, the method
comprising:

receiving sensed vehicle parameters from sensors in the
four-wheel drive vehicle;

generating transfer case chain-jump parameters based on
the sensed vehicle parameters, wherein the chain-jump
parameters are indicative of the vehicle being in a mode
of operation in which the chain is likely to jump over a
tooth of a sprocket; and
Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

3

sending a command signal to initiate disengagement of a
clutch pack in the transfer case responsive to the
generated transfer case chain-jump parameters.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Arocha US 4,995,862 Feb. 26, 1991
Rodrigues US 6,213,242 B1 Apr. 10, 2001

The Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-
16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arocha in
view of Rodrigues.

THE ISSUE
Have the Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Arocha and Rodrigues disclose
using sensed vehicle parameters to generate chain-jump parameters to
disengage a transfer case clutch in order to prevent chain-jump in a four-
wheel drive vehicle?

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of facts (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

4
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Arocha discloses that in a four-wheel drive vehicle uncontrolled
interaxle power imbalances occur (“wind-up”) which waste
power and cause excessive tire wear from drag (a) during
cornering due to front-rear differences in wheel travel distance
and rpm, and (b) in straight line travel due to differences in
effective front-rear tire diameter. Arocha, col. 1, ll. 26-33.
2. Arocha further discloses that known automatic control systems
are required to continuously proportion the drive torque
optimally among the wheels in a full time four-wheel drive
vehicle in response to numerous vehicle operating parameters
such as steering angle, vehicle speed, axle speed differences,
throttle setting, charging pressure, and predicted drive wheel
coefficients. Arocha, col. 2, ll. 8-17. The Appellants do not
contest this finding of fact. Br. 6.
3. The interaxle transfer mechanism of Arocha enables a driver to
choose from three operating modes in a four-wheel drive
vehicle including two-wheel drive, front-rear-locked four wheel
drive, and controllable-limited-slip auxiliary four wheel drive.
Arocha, col. 2, ll. 46-58.
4. Arocha further discloses that the changeover amongst the three
choices of operating modes occurs in response to vehicle
operating parameters such as steering angle, front/rear slippage,
and anti-lock wheel braking status. Arocha, col. 2, ll. 61-63.
Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

5
5. Rodrigues discloses a four-wheel drive system for a vehicle
having a transfer case through which power is continuously
transmitted to a first drive wheel pair and a pair clutch that
controls the magnitude of the torque that is transmitted to a
second drive wheel pair in response to sensed vehicle
conditions, such as the vehicle speed and the position of the
throttle. Rodrigues, Abstract. The Appellants do not contest
this finding of fact. Br. 6.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection “[a]ll words
in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim
against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).

OPINION
Claims 1 and 19 require using “sensed vehicle parameters” to generate
“transfer-case chain jump parameters” which are ‘”indicative of the vehicle
being in a mode of operation in which the chain is likely to jump over a
tooth of a sprocket.”
As noted above, the Appellants do not contest that Arocha discloses
the use of automatic control systems to continuously proportion the drive
torque optimally among the wheels of a full time four-wheel drive vehicle in
automatic response to numerous vehicle operating parameters such as
vehicle speed, throttle settings, and axle speed differences. FF 2. However,
the Appellants argue that the disclosure of Arocha:
Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

6
[S]olely illustrates methods used in the industry to
amplify a four wheel drive vehicle’s “performance
advantages such as increased traction and
enhanced handling compared to conventional two
wheel drive” (Col. 1, Lines 12-17).
Br. 6.
Hence, according to the Appellants, “Arocha is completely silent as to issues
involving chain jump, let alone ways to address such issues.” Id.
Similarly, the Appellants do not contest that Rodrigues discloses a
four-wheel drive system for a vehicle having a transfer case through which
power is continuously transmitted to a first drive wheel pair and a pair clutch
that controls the magnitude of the torque that is transmitted to a second drive
wheel pair in response to sensed vehicle conditions, such as the vehicle
speed and the position of the throttle. FF 5. However, the Appellants argue
that the purpose of Rodrigues’ invention is to:
[E]liminate “noise and harsh engagement in a
transfer case when reversing the direction of
rotation of the wheels while providing the full
benefit of a locked transfer case” (Col. 1, Lines 39-
44).
Br. 6-7.
As such, according to the Appellants, “Rodrigues is completely silent as to
disengaging the transfer clutch to prevent chain-jump, let alone using the
sensed vehicle conditions to generate chain-jump parameters.” Id.
In other words, as far as we understand, the Appellants are arguing
that although Arocha and Rodrigues disclose using sensed vehicle
parameters to achieve improved performance of a four-wheel drive vehicle,
neither Arocha nor Rodrigues disclose using the sensed vehicle parameters
Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

7
to generate chain-jump parameters that indicate the chain is likely to jump
over a tooth of a sprocket.
The Examiner responds that the uncontrolled interaxle power
imbalances (“wind-up”) of Arocha, which occur during cornering due to
front-rear differences in wheel travel distance and rpm, and in straight line
travel due to differences in effective front-rear tire diameter (see FF 1), “can
be considered ‘chain-jump’ parameters…based on sensed vehicle
parameters….” Ans. 4. In other words, the Examiner takes the position that
the instances of “wind-up” taught by Arocha would lead to “chain-jumping.”
Ans. 9. Moreover, the Examiner finds that the problem of “wind-up” in
Arocha is a result of numerous vehicle operating parameters such as
steering angle, vehicle speed, axle speed differences, throttle settings,
charging air pressure, and predicted drive wheel friction coefficients. Id.
Pointing to col. 2, ll. 59-63 of Arocha, the Examiner further finds that
Arocha discloses “resultant ‘chain-jump’ parameters such as axle speed
differences, front/rear slippage and anti-lock braking wheel status….” Id.
However, because “Arocha doesn’t particularly address the feature of
disengagement of a clutch pack” (Ans. 4), the Examiner uses the disclosure
of Rodrigues to show a four-wheel drive system, including a clutch that
controls the torque level transmitted to a second drive wheel pair in response
to sensed vehicle conditions, such as vehicle speed and throttle levels. Ans.
5. The Examiner concludes that:
[I]t would have been obvious of one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have implemented the throttle position and
clutch control of Rodrigues et al., within the
context of the four wheel drive clutch control
system of Arocha, so as to control the amount of
Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

8
slippage between the speeds of the front and rear
axle driveshafts with respect to throttle position,
vehicle speed and resulting differences in the front
and rear axle speeds, in order to prevent axle
windup and a potential chain-jump situation under
conditions of sensed vehicle parameters relating to
a mode of operation in which a chain in the
transfer case is likely to jump over a tooth of a
sprocket due to mismatched front and rear
driveshaft or axle speeds in a four wheel drive
vehicle.

Ans. 5-6.
We disagree with the Examiner’s position for the following reasons.
As noted above, Arocha discloses a first set of vehicle operating parameters
(i.e., steering angle, vehicle speed, axle speed differences, throttle setting,
charging pressure and predicted drive wheel coefficients) to continuously
proportion the drive torque optimally among the wheels in a full time four-
wheel drive vehicle. FF 2. Arocha further discloses a second set of vehicle
operating parameters (i.e., steering angle, front/rear slippage and anti-lock
wheel braking status) to change over between three operating modes in a
four-wheel drive vehicle including two-wheel drive, front-rear-locked four
wheel drive, and controllable-limited-slip auxiliary four wheel drive. FF 3
and 4. However, Arocha does not disclose any relationship between the first
and second set of vehicle operating parameters. Moreover, we find that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that both sets of
vehicle operating parameters of Arocha constitute “sensed vehicle
parameters.”
Although we agree with the Examiner that the instances of “wind-up”
described in Arocha may lead to “chain-jumping,” we could not find any
Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

9
indication in Arocha, and the Examiner has not pointed to any specific
portion in Arocha, that would suggest or disclose using “vehicle sensed
parameters” to generate “chain-jump” parameters which indicate the chain is
likely to jump over a tooth of a sprocket. Specifically, we find that Arocha
does not disclose that the vehicle operating parameters identified by the
Examiner as chain-jump parameters (i.e., axle speed differences, front/rear
slippage and anti-lock braking wheel status) are generated from “vehicle
sensed parameters” or that they are generated parameters at all. As far as we
can tell from the disclosure of Arocha, the axle speed differences, front/rear
slippage, and anti-lock braking wheel status constitute sensed vehicle
parameters. Hence, we find that Arocha does not distinguish between
“vehicle sensed parameters” and “chain-jump” parameters, as required by
the Appellants’ claimed invention. Since Arocha does not make a
distinction between “vehicle sensed parameters” and “chain-jump
parameters,” Arocha cannot disclose using “vehicle sensed parameters” to
generate “chain-jump” parameters that indicate the chain is likely to jump
over a tooth of a sprocket, as required by claims 1 and 19.
Lastly, we note that claims 1 and 19 specifically require that the
disengagement of the clutch pack is “responsive to the generated transfer
case chain-jump parameters.” Rodrigues discloses that the magnitude of the
transmitted torque is in response to sensed vehicle conditions, namely, the
vehicle speed and the position of the throttle (see FF 5), which are different
than the chain-jump parameters of Arocha suggested by the Examiner,
namely, the axle speed differences, front/rear slippage and anti-lock braking
wheel status.
Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

10
In conclusion, we find that the combined teachings of Arocha and
Rodrigues do not disclose using sensed vehicle parameters to generate
chain-jump parameters, as required by claims 1 and 19. Accordingly the
rejection of claims 1 and 19, and their dependent claims 2-16 and 20, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arocha in view of Rodrigues is not
sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an
independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim
dependent therefrom is nonobvious).

CONCLUSION
The Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Arocha and Rodrigues disclose
using sensed vehicle parameters to generate chain-jump parameters to
disengage the transfer case clutch in order to prevent chain-jump in a four-
wheel drive vehicle.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-16, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arocha in view of Rodrigues is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls
Appeal 2009-002415
Application 11/114,756

11

DAIMLERCHRYSLER INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL CORPORATION
CIMS 483-02-19
800 CHRYSLER DR EAST
AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-2757