Ex Parte ORTMANN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2018

14503610 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/503,610 10/01/2014
28395 7590 11/29/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Walter Joseph ORTMANN
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.
83459222 5484
EXAMINER
DANG,TINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2018 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 WALTER JOSEPH ORTMANN,
BERNARD D. NEFCY, and DANIEL SCOTT COL VIN 1
Appeal2017-007036
Application 14/503,610
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which
according to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007036
Application 14/503,610
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a powersplit hybrid powertrain with
overdrive clutch. Claims 1, 7, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A hybrid vehicle comprising:
an internal combustion engine;
a first electric machine;
traction wheels;
an output shaft drivingly coupled to the traction wheels by
a gearing arrangement configured to establish a final drive ratio
between the output shaft and the traction wheels;
a second electric machine drivingly coupled to the output
shaft;
a first gearing arrangement configured to selectively
transmit torque from the engine and first electric machine to the
output shaft;
a second gearing arrangement configured to selectively
transmit torque from the engine to the output shaft in an
overdrive speed and torque relationship, the second gearing
arrangement including a clutch; and
a controller configured to engage the clutch in response to
an acceleration event followed by a decrease in power demand;
and
disengage the clutch in response to a third operating
condition.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hanyu
Bird
Tabata
US 6,258,006 B 1
US 8,403,123 B2
US 8,403,807 B2
2
July 10, 2001
Mar. 26, 2013
Mar. 26, 2013
Appeal2017-007036
Application 14/503,610
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hanyu and Tabata.
Claims 3, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hanyu, Tabata, and Bird.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Hanyu teaches all of the limitations of claim
1, except "the controller configured to engage the clutch in response to an
event by changing the power demand," for which the Examiner relies on
Tabata. Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons that:
Id.
It would have been obvious ... to modify [Hanyu's]
hybrid vehicle system to have the switching clutch to be
connected during the transition between modes as taught by
T ABA TA for the purpose of preventing the engine from entering
a resonating region as a result of reducing shock during the
shifting between modes.
The relevant language of claim 1 for which the Examiner relies on
Tabata is "a controller configured to engage the clutch in response to an
acceleration event followed by a decrease in power demand." Similarly,
independent claims 7 and 17 require, respectively, "engaging the overdrive
mechanical linkage in response to an acceleration event followed by a
decrease in power demand" and "a controller configured to engage the
second mechanical linkage in response to an acceleration event followed by
a decrease in power demand." Thus, all three independent claims require a
controller configured to engage, or the actual engagement of, a
3
Appeal2017-007036
Application 14/503,610
clutch/linkage "in response to an acceleration event followed by a decrease
in power demand."
The United States Patent and Trademark Office gives claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading
claim language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Specification makes clear that the
engagement occurs in response to both the acceleration event and a
subsequent decrease in power demand. For example, the flow chart of
Figure 4, teaches that a clutch is engaged (96) only after a first operating
condition is satisfied (92). The Specification teaches that the first operating
condition can be an "acceleration event followed by a decrease in power
demand." Spec. ,r 36; see also, id. at Fig. 4 and Reply Br. 1-2. Thus, the
two preconditions determine whether to engage the clutch.
The Examiner finds that Tabata teaches that the clutch C 1 is engaged
and is maintained in the engaged position when the vehicle accelerates
"from the first gear position to the fifth gear position." Ans. 17. The
Examiner determines that this is an acceleration event as claimed. Id. The
Examiner finds that Tabata also teaches that "the clutch C 1 is still
maintained in an engaged position" when the vehicle slows down, such as
when the gear position moves from fourth to fifth. Id. The Examiner
determines that this is a decrease in power demand as also claimed. Id.
Thus, the Examiner determines the relevant claim limitation is taught by
Tabata "when an operator has realized that he/she is traveling too fast and
needed to slow down." Id.
4
Appeal2017-007036
Application 14/503,610
As noted by the Examiner, clutch Cl is maintained in an engaged
position through the entire cycle from first gear to fifth gear and back down
again. Id.; see also Tabata Fig. 31. Thus, when moving into first gear from
neutral (N), or reverse (R), the clutch C 1 is engaged in response to an
acceleration event. See Reply Br. 2. However, the independent claims
require that the clutch become engaged after both an acceleration event
"followed by" a decrease in power demand. It is not sufficient to teach the
claimed limitation with the clutch already engaged before a decrease in
power demand occurs.
Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejections of the claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5