13055006 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

Ex Parte Sakaguchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 2016

13055006 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/055,006 01/20/2011 22511 7590 06/30/2016 OSHA LIANG LLP, TWO HOUSTON CENTER 909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500 HOUSTON, TX 77010 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shigeyuki Sakaguchi 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. 17303/055001 2068 EXAMINER DAGER, JONATHAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2016 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@oshaliang.com hathaway@oshaliang.com escobedo@oshaliang.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHIGEYUKI SAKAGUCHI, MASAO SHIOMI, and KENICHI TAMURA Appeal 2014-003 699 Application 13/055,006 Technology Center 3600 Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, LISA M. GUIJT, and MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Shigeyuki Sakaguchi et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 26, 31, 32, and 37- 50. An oral hearing was conducted on June 24, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-003699 Application 13/055,006 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 26, 31, and 43 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 26. A method to control a vehicle, the method comprising: detecting an opening degree of an accelerator; and adjusting a reaction force of the accelerator, wherein the reaction force of the accelerator is increased when the opening degree of the accelerator exceeds a first threshold value at a high vehicle speed range, wherein the reaction force of the accelerator is increased when the opening degree of the accelerator exceeds a second threshold value at a low vehicle speed range including a vehicle starting time, wherein the first threshold value is set higher than the second threshold value, and wherein, at the vehicle starting time, the second threshold value is greater than the opening degree of the accelerator at a closed state. THE REJECTIONS Claims 26, 31, 32, 43, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Sakaguchi (JP 2005-132225; pub. May 26, 2005). 2 Claims 37, 38, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakaguchi and Hijikata (US 2004/0059482 Al; pub. Mar. 25, 2004). Claims 39 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakaguchi and Hara (JP 5-231194; pub. Sept. 7, 1993). 2 This Decision refers to the English-language machine translation of the original Japanese document, as provided in the record. 2 Appeal2014-003699 Application 13/055,006 Claims 40 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakaguchi and Kobayashi (US 2005/0279554 Al; pub. Dec. 22, 2005). Claims 41 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakaguchi and Park (US 2008/0140294 Al; pub. June 12, 2008). Claims 42 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakaguchi, Nakagawa (US 5,517,410; iss. May 14, 1996) and Hij ikata. OPINION Claims 26, 31, 32, 43, and 44-Anticipation Regarding independent claims 26 and 31, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Sakaguchi discloses a second threshold value at a low vehicle speed range including a vehicle starting time, wherein at the vehicle starting time, the second threshold value is greater than the opening degree of the accelerator at a closed state, as claimed. Final Act. 2 (citing Sakaguchi i-fi-f 16, 22, Fig. 3b); see also Adv. Act. 2. Regarding independent claim 43, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that because Appellants' Specification describes low and high speed-change ratios as corresponding to high and low vehicle speed ranges, respectively, Sakaguchi similarly discloses that at a vehicle starting time having a high speed-change ratio, a second threshold value is greater than the opening degree of the accelerator at a closed state. Final Act. 3 (citing Spec. i136). In support of the Examiner's findings, the Examiner determines that although "Sakaguchi does not disclose setting a second threshold value at a 3 Appeal2014-003699 Application 13/055,006 vehicle starting time,"3 the claims do not require "a threshold value at the vehicle starting time." Adv. Act. 2 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that "[t]he plain meaning of [the claims] is that the second threshold must exist within the low speed range; i.e., as long as the threshold exists for a speed within the range, it does not need to exist for every speed within the range," and that "[t]he speed at the vehicle starting time is simply one speed that is within the speed range." Id.; see also Ans. 5---6. The Examiner concludes that because "Sakaguchi discloses a lower threshold value in a lower vehicle speed range ... , Sakaguchi discloses 'the reaction force of the accelerator is increased when the opening degree of the accelerator exceeds a second threshold value at low vehicle speed range including a vehicle starting time."' Adv. Act. 2. Further, the Examiner determines that with respect to the claim limitations requiring that at the vehicle starting time, the second threshold value is greater than the opening degree of the accelerator at a closed state, "the description of the second threshold [in the claims] does not require that the second threshold exist at the starting time." Id. Appellants argue that "[a] non-existent threshold value clearly cannot be greater than the opening degree of the accelerator at a closed state," and therefore, Sakaguchi "fails to show or suggest that, at the vehicle starting time, the second threshold value is greater than the opening degree of the accelerator at a closed state, as required by the claims." Appeal Br. 11. Additionally, Appellants submit that the Examiner incorrectly construes the claims when stating "that [an] increase [in the reaction force of the 3 See also Ans. 3 ("[T]he initial increase in the reaction force shown [in Figure 3a of Sakaguchi] is simply a product of a natural reaction force when stepping on an accelerator pedal, and is not related to a control threshold."). 4 Appeal2014-003699 Application 13/055,006 accelerator when the opening degree of the accelerator exceeds a second threshold value] occurring during the vehicle starting time is unnecessary, because all that is required is that such an increase occurs at a single point within the range." Id. at 15. Instead, Appellants contend that the claims require a system wherein "exceeding [] the second threshold value triggers [an] increase in the reaction force within an entirety of the low vehicle speed range, including the vehicle starting time." Id. (emphasis added). Appellants maintain that "the Examiner's [claim] interpretation would [improperly] vitiate 'including a vehicle starting time' from the claims." Id. Independent claim 26 requires, in relevant part, "a second threshold value at a low vehicle speed range including a vehicle starting time." Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). By the plain meaning of the claim terms and in view of the Specification, we understand this claim language to require that a second threshold value is valid to control the vehicle within a low range of vehicle speeds, which range must include the speed of the vehicle when the vehicle starts. See, e.g., Fig. 4 (depicting low and high vehicle speed ranges on the x-axes and first and second accelerator-opening-degree thresholds "at" each range). Claim 26 further requires that "at the vehicle starting time, the second threshold value is greater than the opening degree of the accelerator at a closed state." Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). By the plain meaning of the claim terms and in view of the Specification, we understand this claim language to require that when the vehicle starts, the second threshold value (which is valid to control the vehicle within a low range of vehicle speeds) is greater than the opening degree of the accelerator at a closed state (when the accelerator is not depressed, i.e., is not depressed at an angle greater than 0 degrees). See Spec. i-f 33 ("an initial vehicle speed 5 Appeal2014-003699 Application 13/055,006 [is] at the time when the accelerator 2 is depressed from a completely closed state ... . ");see also id. i-f 36. Thus, in view of the Examiner's finding that Sakaguchi fails to disclose a second threshold value at the vehicle starting time, we cannot support the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 26 as anticipated by Sakaguchi. Likewise, independent claim 31 also requires "a low vehicle speed range including a vehicle starting time" and that "at the vehicle starting time, the second threshold value is greater than the accelerator opening degree at a closed state" (Appeal Br. 23-24), and therefore, for the same reasons stated supra for claim 26, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 31 and claim 32 depending therefrom. Independent claim 43 requires that "a high-speed change ratio is a second threshold value" and that "at the vehicle starting time, the second threshold value is greater than the accelerator opening degree at a closed state." Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). As stated supra, the Examiner determines that Appellants' Specification describes a high speed-change ratio as corresponding to a low vehicle speed range, and applies Sakaguchi to claim 43 as applied to independent claim 26 supra. Therefore, for similar reasons as stated supra for claim 26, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 43 and claim 44 depending therefrom. Claims 37-42 and 45-50-0bviousness The Examiner's reliance on Hijikata, Hara, Kobayashi, Park, and/or Nakagawa to reject dependent claims 37--42 and 45-50 does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 31 and 4 3 from which these claims depend. Therefore, we also do not sustain the 6 Appeal2014-003699 Application 13/055,006 Examiner's rejection of claims 37--42 and 45-50 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 26, 31, 32, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) is REVERSED. The Examiner's decisions to reject claims 37--42 and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) are REVERSED. REVERSED 7