Ex Parte Katrak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2018

12718198 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/718,198 03/05/2010
101911 7590 06/21/2018
EATON INTELLIGENT POWER LIMITED
c/o FISHMAN STEWART PLLC
39533 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 140
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kerfegar K. Katrak
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.
65856-0136 4397
EXAMINER
KING, RODNEY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2018 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):
JGuenther@fishstewip.com
docketing@fishstewip.com
MStewart@fishstewip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KERFEGAR K. KA TRAK
Appeal2017-007402
Application 12/718, 198
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1--4, 6-12, 15-20, and 22-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2017-007402
Application 12/718, 198
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A transmission system comprising:
a first sensor configured to measure a quantity and output a
first signal representative of the quantity measured;
a second sensor configured to separately measure the quantity
measured by the first sensor and output a second signal
representative of the quantity measured; and
a transmission control module in communication with the
first sensor and the second sensor and configured to process the
first signal along a primary processing path and a secondary
processing path, process the second signal along the primary
processing path and the secondary processing path, compare the
processed first signal to the processed second signal, and
determine if the primary processing path and the first sensor are
reliable.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Drexl
Nada
Hrovat
Katrak
Williams
us 6,142,909
US 2001/0041955 Al
US 2004/0059480 Al
US 2006/0179962 Al
US 2008/0139363 Al
REJECTIONS
Nov. 7, 2000
Nov. 15, 2001
Mar. 25, 2004
Aug. 1 7, 2006
June 12, 2008
I. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22 1 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Nada and Katrak.
1 The statement of this rejection includes claim 24. However, claim 24
depends from claim 20 which is not subject to this rejection. Accordingly,
2
Appeal2017-007402
Application 12/718, 198
II. Claims 4, 10, 11, and 23 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nada, Katrak, and Hrovat.
III. Claims 3, 6, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nada, Katrak, and Williams.
IV. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nada, Katrak, and Drexl.
V. Claims 20 and 243 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Nada, Katrak, Williams, and Drexl.
VI. Claim 23 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nada, Katrak, Williams, Drexl, and Hrovat.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Nada and Katrak disclose or suggest all of
the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Katrak discloses "an inset table 550 of signals 106A-F with their
values in six various states that are mapped to operating modes, a highly
robust signal representation scheme that conveys [that] faults [are] ...
readily detected to identify the unavailable and the available signals." Final
we understand the inclusion of claim 24 in this statement of the rejection to
be a typographical error.
2 The statement of this rejection includes claim 23. However, claim 23
depends from claim 20 which is not included in this rejection. Accordingly,
we understand the inclusion of claim 23 to be a typographical error.
3 As noted supra, claim 24 depends from claim 20. Thus, we understand
claim 24 stand rejected on the same grounds as claim 20.
4 As noted supra, claim 23 depends from claim 20. Further, the explanation
of the rejection of claim 23 relies on Hrovat. See Final Act. 8. Thus, we
understand claim 23 to stand rejected based on Nada, Katrak, Williams,
Drexl (relied upon to reject claim 20) and Hrovat.
3
Appeal2017-007402
Application 12/718, 198
Act. 4--5 (citing Katrak ,r,r 40-42). The Examiner reasons that in Katrak "a
comparison must inherently take place between the signals in order to
identify which signals to use for enhanced robustness." Id. at 5. Based on
this finding and the articulated reasoning, the Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious "to modify the system of Nada et al. to include the
features of Katrak in order to provide robust, multi-state switching and
control for a vehicle." Id.
Noting that "[t]he Final Office Action acknowledged that 'Nada et al.
does not disclose that the transmission control module is configured to
compare the processed first signal to the processed second signal to
determine if the primary processing path is reliable,'" Appellant contends
that in Katrak "the signals 106A-F are [also] not processed signals, as recited
in claim 1, but rather are input signals received by control modules 104A-
C." Appeal Br. 9 (citing Katrak ,r 38). Appellant further argues that "[e]ven
if it is argued that signals 106A-F are processed signals, Katrak does not
teach comparing any of these signals with one another, as is also recited in
claim 1. Rather Katrak teaches comparing each signal with past values of
itself stored in memory." Id. at 10 ( citing Katrak ,r 45).
Responding to these arguments, the Examiner finds that "Nada et al.
specifically discloses a master control CPU 272 that has a function of
determining whether a sensor has an abnormality by determining whether
the difference between two signals AP 1 and AP2 deviate from an
appropriate range." Ans. 3 (citing Nada ,r 109, Fig. 10).
In view of this finding, Appellant acknowledges that "[t]he
abnormality section 272a detects whether the accelerator sensor has an
abnormality by comparing the output signals APl and AP2 of the two
sensors 165a and 165b, as seen in FIGS. 5A-10 of Nada." Reply Br. 3
4
Appeal2017-007402
Application 12/718, 198
(citing Nada ,r,r 101-109). Appellant, however, argues that "these signals
are not processed signals" as required by claim 1. Id.
Appellant is correct. Although, Nada describes the comparison of two
output signals, the compared signals are not processed. See, e.g., Nada
,r 109. Thus, neither Katrak nor Nada disclose processed signals as required
by claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Accordingly, the Examiner
fails to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 8, and 22, which depend therefrom. Claim 9 also
requires the comparison of processed signals. See Appeal Br. 17 (Claims
App.) Thus, for the same reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claim 9 and claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, which depend therefrom.
Rejections II-VI
Rejections II-VI rely on the same incomplete findings as Rejection I.
See Final Act. 8-12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
decisions rejecting claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10-12, 17, 20, 23, and 24 for the
reasons discussed supra.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-12, 15-20, and 22-24 are
REVERSED.
REVERSED
5