Ex Parte Sugiyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2017

13705688 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 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.
13/705,688 12/05/2012 Toyoki Sugiyama 155464 6785
25944 7590
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
MALHOTRA, SANJEEV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2017 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
j armstrong @ oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOYOKI SUGIYAMA and YASUYUKI YOSHII
Appeal 2016-002811
Application 13/705,688
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOVAN, and SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-002811
Application 13/705,688
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—3. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.1
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a vehicle steering system that limits the
amount of power consumed by an electric motor that provides power­
steering assistance to a driver. Spec. 3, 11. The system limits power
consumption at extremely low driving speed and high steering speed. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle steering system in which an electric motor for
steering a wheel is mounted, the vehicle steering system
comprising:
a limit value setting unit that (i) determines whether a
vehicle is stopped or travelling at an extremely low speed, and,
when it is determined that the vehicle is stopped or travelling at
the extremely low speed, (ii) outputs a limit value for imposing
limitation on electric power that is consumed by the electric
motor on a condition that a steering speed at which a steering
member is steered is higher than a predetermined threshold; and
a command voltage control unit that outputs a control
value for controlling the electric motor by using the limit value
provided from the limit value setting unit.
1 Our Decision is based on the Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 5,
2012, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed February 24, 2015, the
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed August 3, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed November 6, 2015, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
January 6, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-002811
Application 13/705,688
REJECTION
Claims 1—3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Shimizu
et al. (US 2003/0107339 Al, published June 12, 2003) (“Shimizu”) and
Kokubo et al. (US 2007/0228823 Al, published October 4, 2007)
(“Kokubo”). Final Act. 3—6.
ANALYSIS
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17—18 (1966). We
view the disclosures of Shimizu and Kokubo as representative of the level of
ordinary skill in the art. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp.,
755 F.2d 158, 164—65 (Fed. Cir. 1985). No evidence of secondary
considerations has been identified in the briefs.
Claim 1 recites inter alia
a limit value setting unit that (i) determines whether a vehicle is
stopped or travelling at an extremely low speed, and, when it is
determined that the vehicle is stopped or travelling at the extremely
low speed, (ii) outputs a limit value for imposing limitation on electric
power that is consumed by the electric motor on a condition that a
steering speed at which a steering member is steered is higher than a
predetermined threshold.
3
Appeal 2016-002811
Application 13/705,688
App. Br. 1. Appellants argue Shimizu and Kokubo fail to disclose the
claimed feature. App. Br. 4—7, Reply Br. 1—3. We agree with Appellants’
argument.
The Examiner contends Shimizu, paragraphs 43, 45, and 59, teach the
claimed feature with the exception of the “limit value setting unit” and
“determined that the vehicle is stopped,” which the Examiner states are
taught by Kokubo, paragraphs 74 and 76. Final Act. 4. Reviewing these
paragraphs, we do not agree that Shimizu and Kokubo teach the claimed
features. Although Shimizu relates to controlling an electric motor for
power steering based on steering torque and vehicle velocity (see Figs. 5—7),
the cited paragraphs of Shimizu are concerned with converting between
biaxial and three-phase signals used to drive and control the electric motor.
Paragraph 59 of Shimizu mentions an attenuator, but its purpose is to
eliminate noise, not to attenuate the signals used to control the motor.
Paragraphs 74 and 76 of Kokubo merely disclose controlling a braking force
of a vehicle to keep the vehicle in the stopped state, and do not mention
outputting a limit value for imposing a limitation on electric power
consumed by an electric motor of a vehicle steering system under the recited
condition.
Appellants also argue Shimizu’s phase transformation does not teach
or suggest the claimed predetermined threshold for a value of a steering
speed of a steering member, and that Shimizu fails to teach or suggest the
claimed outputting of a limit value on a condition that a steering speed at
which a steering member is steered, is higher than a predetermined
threshold. App. Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 4—5. We agree with Appellants’
argument. Although Shimizu mentions the detected current signal may be
4
Appeal 2016-002811
Application 13/705,688
undesirably attenuated by the attenuator when the steering wheel is quickly
turned because of the resulting high frequencies in the signal which are
similar to noise (Ans. 11 citing Shimizu 17), this is not the same as the
claimed outputting a limit value on the condition that the steering speed is
higher than a predetermined threshold. We find no teaching or suggestion of
a threshold in the cited paragraphs. Appellants further argue Shimizu does
not use a limit value in outputting a control value for controlling its electric
motor, and that Kokubo likewise does not disclose outputting a control value
for controlling the electric motor by using the limit value provided from a
limit value setting unit, as claimed. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5—6. Although
both Shimizu and Kokubo output control values to control an electric motor
and hydraulic pumps, respectively, and in so doing could decrease the
amount of current supplied to those devices, these references do not mention
a limit value that imposes limitation on the consumption of electric power,
and therefore also do not teach or suggest outputting a control value that is
dependent on the limit value.
In summary, after considering the scope and content of Shimizu and
Kokubo, we determine that, in light of the noted differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art references, considered as a whole, the
invention of claim 1 would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill at the time of the invention. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2 and 3, which are dependent from claim 1,
and thus incorporate all of its limitations.
Because our decision on this basis is dispositive of the appeal, we do
not reach Appellants’ remaining arguments.
5
Appeal 2016-002811
Application 13/705,688
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1—3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6