Ex Parte Sangameswaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

13792535 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 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.
13/792,535 03/11/2013 Sangeetha Sangameswaran 83211201 8407
28395 7590 10/25/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER SCHARPF, SUSAN E
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANGEETHA SANGAMESWARAN,
MATHEW ALAN BOESCH, GEORGE EDMUND WALLEY,
and JOHN ANTHONY LOCKWOOD
Appeal 2016-006633
Application 13/792,535
Technology Center 3700
Before: JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sangeetha Sangameswaran et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—13.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006633
Application 13/792,535
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to stop/start vehicles and stop/start
control logic for turn lane situations. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling an engine of a stop/start vehicle
including a brake pedal and a steering wheel, the method
comprising:
after the engine has been automatically stopped,
commanding an automatic restart of the engine in response to
detecting that the vehicle is in a turn lane based on traffic data in
a vicinity of the vehicle such that the engine is automatically
restarted before the brake pedal is released and the steering wheel
is turned.
REJECTION
Claims 1—13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nagura (US 2012/0029730 Al, published Feb. 2, 2012) and Ehara (US
2010/0286868 Al, published Nov. 11, 2010).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Nagura discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 including “the engine is automatically restarted before the turn” but
does not disclose that the vehicle includes a “brake pedal and a steering
wheel which would be actuated before the turn.” Final Act. 2. Nonetheless,
the Examiner finds that Ehara discloses a stop/start vehicle including an
engine, brake pedal and a steering wheel, and concludes that it would have
been obvious to include a brake pedal and a steering wheel in Nagura’s
vehicle because a brake pedal and steering wheel “are known elements of
most vehicles and it is well known that they are used by operators in
2
Appeal 2016-006633
Application 13/792,535
maneuvering common vehicles.” Id. The Examiner has similar findings for
independent claims 4 and 9. Id. at 3^4.
Appellants argue that “the mere fact that Ehara has a brake pedal and
steering wheel does not suggest a timing of the automatic engine restart in
Nagura relative to brake pedal or steering wheel activity.” Appeal Br. 3.
According to Appellants, claim 1 requires that “the engine is automatically
restarted before the brake pedal is released and the steering wheel is turned,”
whereas “Ehara suggests that an engine should not be restarted until after a
brake pedal is released.” Id. Appellants contend that “[cjlaims 4 and 9 are
patentable for the reasons claim 1 is patentable.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Ehara teaches a brake pedal and steering
wheel on an automatic start/stop vehicle, and that Ehara is not relied on for
when “the brake pedal is released and the steering wheel is turned.” Ans. 5.
According to the Examiner, Nagura’s “data that is included in the decision to
restart the engine is not affected by the operation of the brake pedal and
steering wheel,” and thus, operation of the brake pedal and steering wheel
could be “prior to, while, or after the engine is auto started.” Id. The
Examiner notes that “the claimed limitation is not excluded by Nagura.” Id.
Appellants reply that the Examiner’s position entails that “the claim
limitations are inherent to Nagura.” Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants,
“the examiner’s comments on Nagura are speculative,” not inherent, and that
“Ehara suggests that an engine should not be restarted until after a brake
pedal is released.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive for the following reasons.
Claim 1 recites, “commanding an automatic restart. . . before the brake
pedal is released and the steering wheel is turned.” Independent claim 9
3
Appeal 2016-006633
Application 13/792,535
includes a similar recitation, and independent claim 4 recites “command an
auto start of the engine prior to an actuation of the accelerator pedal and a
rotation of the steering wheel.” We appreciate the Examiner’s position that
Nagura does not necessarily exclude the claimed limitation because
Nagura’s engine restart is not affected by the operation of the brake pedal
and steering wheel. Nagura, however, discloses that engine ECU 30
determines whether the engine restart condition is satisfied (SI05), when
“both of (i) whether the traffic light device switches over to the green signal
and (ii) whether a preceding vehicle ahead of the subject vehicle 40 starts
forward movement,” or when no oncoming vehicle or pedestrian is detected.
Nagura, 44 and 50, Figs. 4 and 7; see also Final Act. 2. The Examiner
has not directed us to any portion of Nagura that would support a finding
that Nagura’s engine is commanded to restart before the brake pedal is
released and the steering wheel is turned, nor has the Examiner determined
that providing such a configuration would have been obvious based on
Nagura and Ehara. Likewise, the Examiner has not directed us to any
portion of Nagura that would support a finding that Nagura’s engine in fact
restarts prior to actuation of the accelerator pedal. Rather, Nagura discloses
that “by (the driver) depressing the accelerator pedal, the engine ECU 30
may permit the engine start” which presumably occurs after the brake pedal
is released. Nagura, 174. The Examiner’s finding that Nagura discloses
automatic restarting of the engine “before the brake pedal is released and the
steering wheel is turned” is, thus, not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Ans. 5. As the rejection is based on unsupported factual findings,
the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
4
Appeal 2016-006633
Application 13/792,535
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 4,
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1,
claims 5—8 depend from claim 4, and claims 10—13 depend from claim 9.
We do not sustain the rejection of these dependent claims for the same
reasons as claims 1, 4, and 9.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—13 as unpatentable over
Nagura and Ehara is reversed.
REVERSED
5