Ex Parte Martin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2018

12205289 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/205,289 09/05/2008
28395 7590 06/20/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Douglas Raymond Martin
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.
81178006 6566
EXAMINER
MOYER, DALES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS RAYMOND MARTIN, JEFFREY MATTHEW
JARVI, SCOTT ANTHONY GRECA, EDWARD BADILLO, and PHILIP
JOSEPH WIETHE 1
Appeal 2016-008647
Application 12/205,289
Technology Center 3600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 12 through 20.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to regulating speed of an engine in a hybrid
electric vehicle powertrain. Abstract. Claim 12 is illustrative of the
invention and it is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008647
Application 12/205,289
12. A controller-implemented method for controlling a
hybrid electric vehicle having an engine and a traction
motor, comprising:
operating the engine using a controller-
implemented engine speed arbitration strategy to run at
the lower one of a first engine speed (NI) selected from a
stored noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) table and a
second engine speed (N2) selected from a stored
instantaneous efficiency table in response to vehicle
speed and accelerator pedal position signals.
App. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix 1 ).
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 12 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(e) as unpatentable over Kimura (US 2008/0227590 Al). Final Act. 8-
12.3
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue on page 6 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 and 3 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12 is in
error. Appellants argue:
First, Kimura merely discloses operating the engine at either an
arbitrarily high engine rotation speed or low rotation speed
based on if the vehicle is in a low or high speed range.
Whereas, Applicant discloses the use of a precalibrated table
(stored table, see Appellant Spec. at Figs. 2-3) determined from
vehicle speed and acceleration pedal position. Second, Kimura
does not disclose a second engine speed selected from II a stored
instantaneous efficiency table, 11 rather each arbitrary engine
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed December 30,
2015 ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief, filed September 29, 2016 ("Reply Br."),
the Examiner's Answer, mailed July 15, 2016 ("Answer"), and the Final
Office Action, mailed July 9, 2015 ("Final Act").
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection based upon Okubo. Answer 2.
2
Appeal 2016-008647
Application 12/205,289
speed (NI, N2 shown in Figure 5 of Kimura, for example)
relates to suppression of noise and vibrations. There is no
disclosure regarding determination of an engine speed based off
instantaneous engine efficiency, as is claimed by Applicant.
Appeal Br. 6. Further, the Appellants argue that Kimura does not
teach that the engine speed is selected from a noise vibration and
harshness table as claimed. Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants
argue that Figure 5, which the Examiner cites as meeting this
limitation, merely shows a relationship between engine speeds NI and
N2 relative to vehicle speeds. Reply Br. 2. Appellants additionally
argue that the values NI and N2 are constant values and not values
from a table. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Kimura's engine speed NI, which is to
improve fuel consumption, corresponds to the claimed N2, and that
Kimura's engine speed N2 equates to the claimed NI. Answer 3-5.
The Examiner identifies that Appellants' Specification does not define
instantaneous efficiency, and discusses an efficiency table as being
stored in ROM. Answer 5 (citing page 10, lines 31-32,of Appellants'
Specification). Based upon these findings the Examiner finds that
Kimura's teaching of adjusting engine speed every several
milliseconds (instantaneous) to the speed NI which is stored in
memory and selected to improve efficiency, which meets the claimed
value N2 stored in a table. Answer 5, Final Act. 9.
We concur with the Examiner that Kimura teaches operating
the engine, when an idle power setting is requested at either a speed
value of NI, selected for efficiency, or a speed value of N2, selected
to reduce noise, vibration and harshness. See Kimura,r 50. We note
3
Appeal 2016-008647
Application 12/205,289
that claim 12, does not recite how the method chooses between speed
the two speeds, rather claim 12 merely recites implementing a strategy
to run at the lower of a first and second speed. Kimura teaches that
for a vehicle speed above V3 the lower of speed speeds NI is selected.
See id. at 50 and Fig. 5. Further, claim 12 recites the first engine
speed (which the Examiner equates to Kimura's speed N2) is selected
from a noise, vibration and harshness table but does not recite how
many values or what parameters are used in selecting the value from
the table. Accordingly, the claim is broad enough to include a table
with one NVH speed value, or the same value across a range of speeds
as shown in Kimura's Figure 5. Thus, we concur with the Examiner
that Kimura's selection of engine idle speed N2, which is to reduce
noise and vibration, meets the claim. The Examiner finds, and we
concur, that the value for N2 is stored in the ECU, which meets the
claimed value stored in a table.
Claim 12 also recites that the second engine speed (which the
Examiner equates to Kimura's speed NI) is selected from a table in
response to vehicle speed and pedal positon, but does not recite any
limitations directed to how many values are in the table. As such the
claim is broad enough to encompass the efficiency table as having
only one value or the same value across a range of speeds. Kimura's
engine speed NI is based upon vehicle speed and accelerator pedal
signals.
Thus, we concur with the Examiner that Kimura teaches an
engine strategy, which operates in the manner as recited in claim 12.
4
Appeal 2016-008647
Application 12/205,289
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 12 and dependent claims 13 through 15 grouped with claim 12.
Further, with respect to claim 15, Appellants argue that Kimura
does not teach operating an engine at a third--engine speed N3--based
upon a battery state of charge. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue that
Kimura's third engine speed N3 is not based upon battery state of
charge. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner's responds to Appellants' arguments, by finding
that Kimura discusses the power demand of the motor, is based upon
the charge state of the battery and that the motor speed N etemp is
based upon battery power. Answer 6. It is this engine speed that the
Examiner equates to the third engine speed recited in claim 15.
Answer 6. Appellants' arguments have not addressed these findings
by the Examiner and thus have not apprised us of error in the
Examiner's findings that Kimura teaches the third engine speed as
recited in claim 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16 through 18 grouped
with claim 15.
With respect to independent claim 18, Appellants' arguments
on page 7 of the Brief are similar to those discussed above with
respect to claim 12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 18 through 20 for the same reasons as claim 12.
5
Appeal 2016-008647
Application 12/205,289
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 12 through 20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6