Ex Parte Sangameswaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

13179747 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/179,747 07/11/2011
28395 7590 10/02/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sangeetha Sangameswaran
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.
83181152 1149
EXAMINER
KIRBY,BRIANR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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 SANGEETHA SANGAMESW ARAN,
KEVIN ROY HARPENAU, KIRK PEBLEY,
DAVID CELINSKE, and ERIC MICHAEL RADEMACHER
Appeal2017-003686
Application 13/179,747
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sangeetha Sangameswaran et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-9,
11-13, and 15-17, which are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-003686
Application 13/179,747
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates to techniques for determining
whether to inhibit an engine auto stop based on estimates of electric current
demand of electrical loads." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent.
Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below with emphasis added, are illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A vehicle comprising:
an engine; and
at least one controller configured to inhibit an auto stop
of the engine in response to an estimated current to be
demanded by vehicle electrical loads, including a climate
control system, during an auto stop of the engine being greater
than a threshold current for a predetermined period of time.
6. A vehicle comprising:
an engine; and
at least one controller configured to detect an engine auto
stop inhibit condition when an estimate of current to be
demanded by vehicle electrical loads, including a climate
control system, during an auto stop of the engine is greater than
a threshold current and, in response to detecting the engine auto
stop inhibit condition, prevent the engine from auto stopping.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Yamaguchi '006
Yamaguchi '778
US 2007 /0080006 Al
US 2007/0170778 Al
2
Apr. 12, 2007
July 26, 2007
Appeal2017-003686
Application 13/179,747
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 6-9, 11-13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Yamaguchi '778. Final Act. 3-8.
II. Claims 1--4, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi '778 and
Yamaguchi '006. Id. at 9-15.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Rejections I and II are deficient based on an
assertion that Yamaguchi '778 does not disclose "an estimate of current to
be demanded by vehicle electrical loads ... during an auto stop of the
engine" to be compared against a threshold current, urging instead that
Yamaguchi '778 discloses only "actual" or "consumed" currents. See
Appeal Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 2. After careful consideration of the record
before us, Appellants' assertion does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's reliance on the disclosure of Yamaguchi '778, which is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
In this regard, the Examiner's finding that Yamaguchi '778 discloses
comparison against a threshold current of a "[ s ]um of the necessary current
values for the safety system units and the consumed current values by the
accessories," which looks to current values "associated with safety devices
and accessories which will draw current from the battery, after the engine is
switched off," is sufficient to disclose that the controller "is estimating the
current 'to be demanded by vehicle electrical loads during auto stop of the
engine,"' as required by the claims. Final Act. 4 ( citing Yamaguchi '778
3
Appeal2017-003686
Application 13/179,747
,r,r 45, 92) (emphasis added); see id. at 7, 9--10 (same findings for other
independent claims); see also Ans. 15-18 (citing Yamaguchi '778 ,r,r 2-5,
7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 89). Such expected future current values are sufficiently
considered estimates in that they are currents "to be demanded when the
engine is off and the battery is the only element providing a supply of
current," since future values must be estimations ( one cannot actually
measure a current during an event that has yet to take place). Final Act. 4
( emphasis added). Thus, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's rejections.
Further, although we appreciate Appellants' position that their
disclosed estimates can account for current demands that may change
(increase or decrease) upon transitioning to an auto stop of the engine (see
Appeal Br. 4--5; see also Spec. ,r,r 14--17), such possible complexities are
simply not required by the broad "estimate of current" ( or "estimated
current") recited in the argued independent claims (see Appeal Br., Claims
App.) As stated by our reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
13 69 (Fed. Cir. 1998), "the name of the game is the claim." It is well
established that limitations not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon
forpatentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
We note that any other arguments not specifically addressed in detail
herein have been thoroughly considered by the panel but are not persuasive
for the reasons well expressed in the Examiner's Answer.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, Appellants'
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejections.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections.
4
Appeal2017-003686
Application 13/179,747
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-9, 11-13,
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yamaguchi '778.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 16, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi '778
and Yamaguchi '006.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5