Ex Parte Kyle

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 2012

11233847 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2012)

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.
11/233,847 09/23/2005 Ronald L. Kyle HYB-10203/03 3256
25006 7590 03/19/2012
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
PO BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021
EXAMINER
COOLMAN, VAUGHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RONALD L. KYLE
____________

Appeal 2011-000373
Application 11/233,847
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, KEN B. BARRETT, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 9-10. Claims 1-8 and 11 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-000373
Application 11/233,847

2
REJECTIONS
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hunt (US 4,405,029, issued Sep. 20, 1983) and Wyczalek (US 4,864,151,
issued Sep. 5, 1989).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hunt, Wyczalek and Selfors (US 5,893,423, issued Apr. 13, 1999).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 9 is the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
9. A hybrid automotive vehicle, comprising:
an internal combustion engine having a manifold
connected to receive its exhaust gases and having
an output shaft;
an electric motor-generator having an output shaft;
a transfer case connected to the output shafts of the
internal combustion engine and the motor-
generator and having an output driveshaft;
driven wheels powered by the output driveshaft of
the transfer case;
an electric storage system comprising a battery;
an exhaust turbine connected to receive exhaust
gases passing out of the manifold and operative to
power an output shaft;
an electric generator connected to receive the full
energy output of the exhaust turbine output shaft;
a first electrical connection between the motor-
generator and the electric storage system to
provide electric power to the storage system when
the motor-generator output shaft is driven by the
transfer case during vehicle braking; and
Appeal 2011-000373
Application 11/233,847

3
a second electric connection between the electric
generator and the storage system to provide
electrical power from the generator to the battery
during operation of the internal combustion
engine.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Hunt discloses structure that corresponds to
everything recited in claim 9 except for the “exhaust turbine”, “an electric
generator”, and “second electric connection”, which are taught by Wyczalek.
Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hunt’s hybrid
vehicle with Wyczalek’s exhaust turbine to increase power output for the
vehicle. Id. The Examiner’s articulated reasoning is supported by rational
underpinning. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Appellant contends that the rationale is more complex than the
Examiner provides. Br. 4. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have found certain advantages obvious at the time of the application’s
priority date of 2004 or 2005, when there were almost no hybrid vehicles
sold in America. Br. 4, 5. The Appellant asserts that the “main advantage
provided by converting the energy in the exhaust into electric energy . . . is
to lower the electrical stored power requirements of the vehicle to either
lower the cost of the batteries or increase the battery-only mileage.” Br. 4.
Also the Appellant asserts that “using exhaust powered turbines in a hybrid
vehicle to charge the batteries derives from the high acceleration available in
a hybrid vehicle without supercharging and the need to minimize the power
storage capability of the batteries.” Br. 5. However, the Appellant’s
contention does not persuasively explain how the Examiner’s conclusion of
Appeal 2011-000373
Application 11/233,847

4
obviousness lacks rational underpinning. See Ans. 5-6. Thus the rejection
of claim 9 as unpatentable over Hunt and Wyczalek is sustained.
Turning to dependent claim 10, the Examiner correctly determines
that Selfors’ description that “another advantage of the present invention . . .
eliminates the need for gears to connect the turbines to the alternators” is
evidence that it was well known in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention to provide “a gear reduction unit between the exhaust turbine and
the electric generator”, as recited in claim 10. Ans. 5, 6; Selfors, col. 2, ll.
11-17. The Appellant contends that Selfors’ arrangement, which “eliminates
the need for gears to connect the turbines to the alternators”, is “negative and
inferential” and does not suggest “that the prior art contained such an
arrangement.” Br. 6. The Appellant’s contention is not persuasive because
the Examiner is not relying on Selfors’ arrangement to teach the limitation
of claim 10. Ans. 6. Rather, the Examiner relies on Selfors’ disclosure as
evidence that using gear reduction to connect turbines to alternators is old
and well known in the art. Id. Thus, the rejection of claim 10 as
unpatentable over Hunt, Wyczalek and Selfors is sustained.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hunt and Wyczalek, and claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunt, Wyczalek and Selfors.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
Klh