Ex Parte Shiomi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12999426 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/999,426 12/16/2010
22511 7590 03/21/2016
OSHA LIANG L.L.P.
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masao Shiomi
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.
17303/057001 5305
EXAMINER
PATEL, SHARDUL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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
dthomas@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAO SHIOMI and SHIGEYUKI SAKAGUCHI
Appeal2014-001049
Application 12/999,4261
Technology Center 3600
Before NEALE. ABRAMS, JILL D. HILL, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Masao Shiomi and Shigeyuki Skaguchi (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's Final Rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) of claims 1-18 and 20 as unpatentable over Y one (US
2005/0056253 Al, pub. Mar. 17, 2005) and Matsuyawa (US 2009/0240404
Al, pub. Sept. 24, 2009); and of claim 19 as unpatentable over Yone,
Matsuyawa, and Kuge (US 2003/0236602 Al, pub. Dec. 25, 2003). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2014-001049
Application 12/999,426
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 13, 18, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below and illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. An accelerator control apparatus of a vehicle, comprising:
a means for detecting a position of an accelerator;
a means for adjusting a reaction force of the accelerator;
the accelerator configured to receive a basic reaction
force which increases as an accelerator opening degree
increases; and
wherein the means for adjusting increases the reaction
force of the accelerator by an increase amount in addition to the
basic reaction force when the position of the accelerator is
increased to satisfy a predetermined condition associated with a
specific fuel consumption of the vehicle;
wherein the means for adjusting sets the increase amount
to a first amount when the position of the accelerator is
increased from a first accelerator position in a preload area to a
second accelerator position that satisfies the predetermined
condition;
wherein the means for adjusting sets the increase amount
to a second amount when the position of the accelerator is
increased from an intermediate accelerator position that exceeds
the preload area to the second position;
wherein the first amount is greater than the second
amount.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 1-18 and 20 over Yone and Matsuyawa
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner fails to
establish a prima facie showing of obviousness in rejecting claims 1-18 and
20 over Yone and Matsuyawa. See Appeal Br. 11-16; see also Reply Br. 3-
9.
2
Appeal2014-001049
Application 12/999,426
In rejecting independent claims 1, 13, 18, and 20, and their respective
dependent claims 2-12 and 14--17, the Examiner finds that Y one discloses
the claimed accelerator control apparatus having substantially all the
limitations recited by the claims, but looks to Matsuyawa for disclosing "the
means for adjusting increases [to] the reaction force of the accelerator by an
increase amount in addition to the basic reaction force when the position of
the accelerator is increased to satisfy a predetermined condition associated
with a specific fuel consumption of the vehicle." Final Act. 6-7 (citing
Matsuyawa, paras. 44--45).
Based on those teachings, the Examiner concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to modify Yone to include the
means for adjusting increases [to] the reaction force of the
accelerator by an increase amount in addition to the basic
reaction force when the position of the accelerator is increased
to satisfy a predetermined condition associated with a specific
fuel consumption of the vehicle [as taught] by Matsuyawa in
order to achieve appropriate balance between the traction force
and the lift force with simple control and further enhance
workability.
Id. at 7 (citing Matsuyawa, para. 11 ).
In contesting the rejection, Appellants first point out that while "Y one
discloses a vehicular accelerator pedal device," that "Yone does not
distinguish between when the accelerator is pressed from a preload position
and when the accelerator is pressed from an intermediate position,"
contending that "regardless of the starting position of the accelerator
depression, the vehicular accelerator pedal device of Y one employs a single
common increase amount." Appeal Br. 14 (citing Yone, Fig. 4). In
particular, Appellants contend that Y one "fails to disclose setting the
increase amount of the reaction force to a first amount when the accelerator
3
Appeal2014-001049
Application 12/999,426
is pushed from preload to second position, and a second amount when
pushed from [an] intermediate to second position, wherein the first amount
is greater than the second amount, as required by [the claims]." Id. at 14--15.
Appellants reason that the Examiner misreads Y one, in
asserting that, when the position of the accelerator is increased
from a first accelerator position to a second accelerator position,
S3 in Fig. 4 of Y one reads on the second accelerator position of
the claimed invention, while when the position of the
accelerator is increased from an intermediate accelerator
position to the second accelerator position, S2 in Fig. 4 of Y one
reads on the second accelerator position of the claimed
invention.
Id. at 15.
Appellants conclude that the Examiner's finding "is clearly improper,
because the Examiner is asserting that two different positions, S2 and S3 [in
Yone,] read on the same position, (i.e., 'a second accelerator position' and
'the second position. ')"2 Id. Appellants also point out that "in paragraphs
44--45 of ivfatsuyawa, the only mention of an accelerator is with respect to
controlling the fuel injection amount in response to the accelerator, which is
unrelated to varying the reaction force of the accelerator." Id. at 16.
Rather than responding to Appellants' arguments regarding
Matsuyawa, the Examiner appears to modify the final rejection by relying
only on Yone for disclosing the limitation "setting the increase amount of
the reaction force to a first amount when the accelerator is pushed from
preload to second position, and a second amount when pushed from
intermediate to second position, wherein the first amount is greater than the
2 We construe the claim terms "second accelerator position" and "second
position" to be synonymous. See Appeal Br. 16.
4
Appeal2014-001049
Application 12/999,426
second amount." Ans. 3.
As Appellants again point out, "Y one does not distinguish between
when the accelerator is pressed from a preload position and when the
accelerator is pressed from an intermediate position." Reply Br. 7. We
agree with Appellants that "the claims require an increase amount to be
increased by a first amount when the accelerator is increased from a first
accelerator position to a second accelerator position, and by a second
amount when the accelerator is increased from an intermediate position to
the second accelerator position." Id. at 8.
We also agree with Appellants that "regardless of the starting position
of the accelerator depression, the vehicular accelerator pedal device of Y one
follows the same curve, and, employs a single common increase amount."
Id. As such, Y one fails to disclose a first and second amount of reaction
force, depending on whether the accelerator is increased from a preload or
intermediate position. .
For the foregoing reasons, we find Appellants' arguments to be
persuasive and do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18
and 20 over Yone and Matsuyawa.
Obviousness of Claim 19 over Yone, Matsuyawa, and Kuge
The Examiner's rejection of claim 19 is based on the same
unsupported findings discussed above with respect to the disclosure of Y one.
Final Act. 15-16. See also Ans. 4. The addition ofKuge does not remedy
the deficiencies of Y one, as discussed supra. Accordingly, for similar
reasons as discussed above for claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's
decision rejecting claim 19.
5
Appeal2014-001049
Application 12/999,426
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection.
REVERSED
6