Ex Parte Sakai

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2009

10326070 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ATSUSHI SAKAI
____________________

Appeal 2009-000598
Application 10/326,070
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided:1 June 22, 2009
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-000598
Application 10/326,070

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Atsushi Sakai (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 3-5, 7-9, 11-14 and 18-24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An oral hearing was held on June 10, 2009.

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention pertains to an engine control apparatus
for minimizing damage to the catalyst in a catalytic converter. (Spec. 1,
¶ [0001].) Claim 3, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
3. An engine control apparatus comprising:
a fuel cutting component including an engine speed
limiter component configured to cut a fuel supply to an engine
upon detecting a rotational engine speed of the engine
exceeding an allowable rotational engine speed;
a deceleration fuel cutting component configured to cut
the fuel supply upon detecting vehicle deceleration; and
a deceleration fuel cut prohibiting component configured
to prohibit the deceleration fuel cutting component from cutting
the fuel supply to the engine during the vehicle deceleration for
a prescribed period of time after operation of the fuel cutting
component, wherein
the prescribed period of time during which cutting of the
fuel supply during the vehicle deceleration is prohibited is set in
response to an amount of time over which the engine speed
limiter component is operated.
Appeal 2009-000598
Application 10/326,070

3

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Beck US 5,444,974 Aug. 29, 1995
Matsuki US 5,884,603 March 23, 1999
Hasler US 6,009,857 Jan. 4, 2000
Suzuki US 6,405,527 B2 June 18, 2002

The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 3-5, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hasler;
2. Claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuki and Suzuki; and
3. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Matsuki, Suzuki, and Beck.

ISSUES
The Examiner found that Hasler discloses the apparatus defined by
each of Appellant’s claims 3-5, 18, and 19. (Ans. 3-4.) In particular, the
Examiner found that Hasler’s step 220 constitutes both a fuel cutting
component and a deceleration fuel cutting component. (Id. at 3.) Appellant
argues that the Examiner erred in finding that a single step in Hasler
constitutes both components. (Reply Br. 2, 7-8.) Appellant also argues that
Hasler fails to disclose a component that cuts fuel upon detecting a vehicle
deceleration, and thus does not disclose the recited deceleration fuel cutting
component. (Id. at 4-5.) Therefore, the first issue on appeal is:
Appeal 2009-000598
Application 10/326,070

4
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Hasler
discloses all of the limitations of the claims subject to the anticipation
rejection?
The Examiner also concluded that the subject matter of all of the
appealed claims would have been obvious based on the finding that
Matsuki’s steps S6 or S7 correspond to the claimed fuel cutting component
and the deceleration fuel cutting component. (See Ans. 4.) Appellant argues
that the Examiner erred in finding that the single step S6 or S7 serves as a
disclosure of both recited components. (Reply Br. 10-11.) Therefore, the
second issue on appeal is:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Matsuki
discloses a fuel cutting component and a deceleration fuel cutting
component as recited in the rejected claims?

ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claims 3-5, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as Being
Anticipated by Hasler
Independent claims 3 and 5 require two separate fuel cutting
components – a fuel cutting component and a deceleration fuel cutting
component. The former is configured to cut a fuel supply upon detecting an
engine speed in excess of an allowable speed. The latter is configured to cut
a fuel supply upon detecting vehicle deceleration. Independent claims 18
and 19 recite similar “fuel cutting means” and “deceleration fuel cutting
means.” The separate nature of the two components/means is confirmed by
the claims’ recitation of a deceleration fuel cutting component/means that
relates the operation of the two. (See, e.g., claim 3 (“a deceleration fuel cut
prohibiting component configured to prohibit the deceleration fuel cutting
Appeal 2009-000598
Application 10/326,070

5
component from cutting the fuel supply to the engine during the vehicle
deceleration for a prescribed period of time after operation of the fuel cutting
component”).)
The Examiner found that Hasler discloses:
- a fuel cutting component including an engine speed
limiter component (160) configured to cut (step 220) a fuel
supply to the engine upon detecting a rotational engine speed of
the engine exceeding an allowable rotational engine speed (step
200 with Yes answer);
- a deceleration fuel cutting component (step 220)
configured to cut the fuel supply upon detecting vehicle
deceleration[.]
(Ans. 3.) Hasler’s item 160 is merely an engine speed signal (Hasler, col. 2,
ll. 41-46.), and thus does not function as a fuel cutting component.
Therefore, we understand the Examiner to have found that Hasler’s step 220
constitutes both the fuel cutting component/means and the deceleration fuel
cutting component/means. However, the Examiner has not adequately
explained how that same step serves as a disclosure of the two separate
claimed components and means.
Additionally, we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner has
failed to show that Hasler discloses a deceleration fuel cutting component
configured to cut fuel upon detecting a vehicle deceleration. The Examiner
found that Hasler’s step 220 cuts fuel when the engine speed falls within a
certain range. (Ans. 7.) The Examiner then points to the statement that
Hasler’s invention has application in a marine pleasure craft operating at low
engine speeds around docks and other obstacles. (Id. (citing Hasler, col. 5,
ll. 43-45).) The Examiner asserts that such a craft decelerates as it
approaches a dock, and that Hasler therefore discloses the recited
Appeal 2009-000598
Application 10/326,070

6
deceleration fuel cutting component/means. (Id.) However, Hasler’s
pleasure craft discussion suggests, at most, only vehicle deceleration
occurring after the fuel supply is cut. The Examiner does not direct our
attention to any disclosure in Hasler of a component configured to cut the
fuel supply upon detecting vehicle deceleration, as recited in Appellant’s
claims.
The Appellant has persuaded us that that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 3, 5, 18, and 19, and claim 4, which depends
from claim 3, as anticipated by Hasler.

The Rejection of Claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as Being Unpatentable over Matsuki and Suzuki
The rejected independent claims require a fuel cutting component or
means, and a deceleration fuel cutting component or means. The fuel
cutting component is configured to cut fuel upon the detection of excessive
engine speed (e.g., claim 3) or vehicle speed (e.g., claim 7). The
deceleration fuel cutting component is configured to cut fuel upon detecting
vehicle deceleration. The Examiner found that Matsuki discloses:
- a fuel cutting component (step S6 or S7) configured to
cut a fuel supply to the engine upon detecting a reduced torque
requirement (step S1 with YES answer);
- a deceleration fuel cutting component (step S6 or S7)
configured to cut the fuel supply upon detecting vehicle
deceleration due to the reduced torque requirement[.]
(Ans. 4.) Thus, the Examiner found that steps S6 or S7 constitute both the
fuel cutting component and the deceleration fuel cutting component. Steps
S6 and S7 are part of a single fuel cutting procedure initiated by a “torque
down” requirement. (See Matsuki, col. 5, ll. 43-45; col. 11, ll. 14-23; fig. 6.)
Appeal 2009-000598
Application 10/326,070

7
It appears that the Examiner is asserting that such a torque down
requirement either is confirmed by or determined in response to a signal
from an engine speed sensor or from a vehicle speed sensor.2 (See Ans. 5,
9.) Thus, we understand the Examiner to have found that this torque down
requirement (which the Examiner found to be a YES answer in Matsuki’s
step S1) represents both: a) the detection of excessive engine or vehicle
speed for the fuel cutting component, and b) the detection of vehicle
deceleration for the deceleration fuel cutting component. Therefore, it
appears that the Examiner found that steps S6 and S7 in Matsuki’s procedure
are either a fuel cutting component with a speed limiter or a deceleration fuel
cutting component, depending on the reason for the torque down
requirement. However, as discussed above in the context of the anticipation
rejection, the claims require two separate fuel cutting components (or
means). The Examiner has not adequately explained how Matsuki discloses
the two recited components in the same apparatus. As such, the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness lacks a rational underpinning. We are
constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 18-24 as
being unpatentable over those references.

2 The Examiner refers to Suzuki’s teachings regarding “an engine speed
limiter component (5) [and] a vehicle speed limiter component (11).” (Ans.
5, 9.) Those “components” are merely the engine crank angle position
sensor and the vehicle speed sensor, respectively. (Suzuki, col. 4, ll. 14-15,
43-44.)
Appeal 2009-000598
Application 10/326,070

8
The Rejection of Claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being
Unpatentable over Matsuki, Suzuki, and Beck
Claims 13 and 14 depend from claim 11. The Examiner found that
Beck teaches a catalytic converter that includes a ceramic carrier. (Ans. 6.)
However, the Examiner does not rely on Beck in any manner that would
cure the deficiencies of the combination of Matsuki and Suzuki with respect
to the rejection of claim 11. (Id.) Accordingly, the rejection of claims 13
and 14 is reversed.

CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Hasler discloses all of the limitations of the claims subject to the
anticipation rejection. Thus, the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 3-5, 18, and 19 as anticipated by Hasler.
We further conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Matsuki discloses both a fuel cutting component and a
deceleration fuel cutting component as recited in the rejected claims. Thus,
the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-5, 7-9,
11, 12, and 18-24 as obvious over Matsuki and Suzuki, and in rejecting
claims 13-14 as obvious over Matsuki, Suzuki, and Beck.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3-5, 7-9, 11-14, and
18-24 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-000598
Application 10/326,070

9

LV

GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP
1233 20TH STREET, NW, SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680