Ex Parte Pitsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2017

12916809 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2017)

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.
12/916,809 11/01/2010 Michael J. Pitsch P011709-PTH-RRM 1314
72823 7590
Quinn IP Law
21500 Haggerty Road
Suite 300
Northville, MI 48167
07/25/2017 EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2017 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):
amb@quinnlawgroup.com
U S Docketing @ quinnlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. PITSCH, LAN WANG,
SHANNON E. REEVES, and WILLIAM L. ALDRICH III
Appeal 2015-004980
Application 12/916,809
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 2seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—6 and 8.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as GM Global Technology
Operations LLC, which is identified as a subsidiary of General Motors.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 7 is canceled, and claims 9—20 are withdrawn. App. Br. 3, 14.
Appeal 2015-004980
Application 12/916,809
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below to
illustrate the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for controlling a hybrid electric vehicle having
at least one motor-generator, an internal combustion engine
employing a camshaft and a camshaft phaser, a controller, and
an energy-storage device operatively connected to the engine and
to the at least one motor-generator, the method comprising:
determining via the controller whether a deceleration of
the vehicle is desired;
ceasing via the controller a supply of fuel to the engine
when the deceleration is desired; and
regulating via the controller the camshaft phaser to a
predetermined fuel cut-off position when the supply of fuel to the
engine has been ceased, such that a magnitude of compression
pulses in the engine is reduced relative to when the engine is
being fueled.
Rejections
I. Claims 1—3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (US 2002/0134596 Al, published Sept.
26, 2002) (“Morimoto”) and Buslepp et al. (US 2008/0223334 Al,
published Sept. 18, 2008) (“Buslepp”). Final Act. 2-4.
II. Claims 4—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morimoto, Buslepp, and Kataoka et al. (US 2006/0048734
Al, published Mar. 9, 2006) (“Kataoka”). Final Act. 4—5.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (App. Br. 5—11; Reply Br. 2—8). We concur with Appellants’
2
Appeal 2015-004980
Application 12/916,809
argument (App. Br. 7) that the Examiner has not shown Buslepp teaches
regulating a camshaft phaser “such that a magnitude of compression pulses
in the engine is reduced relative to when the engine is being fueled,” as
recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds there will be “a reduction of a magnitude of
compression pulses in the engine specifically when fuel supply is cut-off as
compared to when the engine is being field [sic].” Ans. 5. Claim 1,
however, requires that the camshaft phaser cause the magnitude of
compression pulses to be reduced relative to when the engine is being
fueled, because the claim recites regulating the camshaft phaser to the fuel
cut-off position “such that” a magnitude of compression pulses is reduced.
The Examiner’s finding as to the fuel supply’s effect on the magnitude of
compression pulses does not address claim 1 ’s required connection between
the camshaft phaser and magnitude of compression pulses. We also agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasons as to
why one of ordinary skill in the art would employ Buslepp’s camshaft
phaser in such a way that it would reduce the magnitude of compression
pulses relative to when the engine is being fueled. App. Br. 8.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 8,
which depend from claim 1 and are rejected on the same ground.
Rejection II
Rejection II relies on the same unsupported findings as the rejection
of claim 1 discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
3
Appeal 2015-004980
Application 12/916,809
decision rejecting claims 4—6, as set forth in Rejection II, for the same
reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 and 8.
REVERSED
4