Ex Parte TAKAHASHI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2018

14051677 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/051,677 10/11/2013
23373 7590 06/26/2018
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shingo TAKAHASHI
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.
Q207292 2335
EXAMINER
BAILEY, JOHN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHIN GO TAKAHASHI and SHUICHI WADA 1
Appeal2017-010813
Application 14/051,677
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Toyoda (US 2006/0112932 Al, pub. June 1, 2006), Fujino
(US 2009/0240423 Al, pub. Sept. 24, 2009), and Minami
(US 2012/0303249 Al, pub. Nov. 29, 2012). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010813
Application 14/051,677
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A control device for an internal combustion engine including
a plurality of cylinders, the control device comprising:
a misfire detection unit for detecting a misfire state for
each of the plurality of cylinders;
a plurality of electronic throttles each provided on an
intake pipe corresponding to each of the plurality of cylinders,
for adjusting an intake air amount taken into each of the plurality
of cylinders by way of a throttle opening degree; and
a throttle opening degree control unit for controlling the
throttle opening degree of each of the plurality of electronic
throttles,
wherein, when the misfire detection unit detects the
misfire state in any one of the plurality of cylinders, the throttle
opening degree control unit gradually decreases a maximum
allowed value of the throttle opening degree of the electronic
throttle corresponding to the cylinder in the misfire state as time
elapses.
DISCUSSION
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "when the misfire
detection unit detects the misfire state in any one of the plurality of
cylinders, the throttle opening degree control unit gradually decreases a
maximum allowed value of the throttle opening degree of the electronic
throttle corresponding to the cylinder in the misfire state as time elapses."
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Independent claim 5 similarly recites, in
relevant part, "gradually decreasing, when the misfire detection unit detects
the misfire state in any one of the plurality of cylinders, a maximum allowed
value of the throttle opening degree of the electronic throttle corresponding
2
Appeal2017-010813
Application 14/051,677
to the cylinder in the misfire state as time elapses." Id. at 15. Appellant
argues that it would not have been obvious to modify the misfire detection
apparatus and method of Toyoda based on the teachings of Minami to
gradually decrease the maximum throttle opening degree when a misfire
state is detected. See id. at 7-11; Reply Br. 5-7. We agree that a sustainable
case of obviousness has not been established.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds that Toyoda
discloses an internal combustion engine control device and method
including, in relevant part, a misfire detection unit detecting a misfire state.
See Final Act. 2, 5 (citing Toyoda i-fi-f 19, 64; Abstract). The Examiner also
finds that Toyoda discloses a throttle opening degree control unit decreasing
a maximum throttle opening degree value when a misfire state is detected.
See id. at 3, 5 (citing Toyoda i-fi-120, 24, 28, 94). The Examiner
acknowledges that Toyoda does not disclose, inter alia, that the throttle
opening degree value is decreased gradually, but finds that Minami teaches
this feature. 2 See id. (citing Minami i1 40). The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to modify Toyoda "to gradually decrease the
maximum allowed opening degree of the throttle, such that the intake air
quantity does not decrease below the normal combustion lower limit value,
in order to prevent deterioration of the combustion state of the engine in
2 The Examiner relies on Fujino for a teaching to provide individual throttle
bodies "on an intake pipe corresponding to each of the plurality of
cylinders," but finds that Fujino, like Toyoda, fails "to teach that the throttle
opening degree control unit gradually decreases a maximum allowed value
of the throttle opening degree of the electronic throttle." Final Act. 3
(emphasis omitted) (citing Fujino, Fig. 6, i1 73).
3
Appeal2017-010813
Application 14/051,677
order to avoid further misfire as taught by Minami." Id. at 3, 6 (citing
Minami i-fi-1 39--40).
Here, the Examiner errs by not articulating sufficient reasoning,
supported by rational underpinnings, as to why a person having ordinary
skill in the art would have been prompted to modify the teachings of Toyoda
as proposed in the rejection. See KSR lnt 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (stating that "[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with sorne rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness" (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006))).
Toyoda discloses a misfire detector for a multi-cylinder internal
combustion engine. See Toyoda i-fi-120, 94. The misfire detector control
includes "a throttle opening control for misfire to limit the throttle opening
angle as compared to a normal opening in accordance with an acceleration
degree." Id. i194; see also id., Fig. 9 (depicting a time chart for the misfire
detector throttle opening control). After determining that a misfire rate
exceeds a threshold criteria A, "the throttle opening angle control for misfire
is performed in step 308 so that the throttle opening angle is at a misfire
opening angle at which the throttle opening angle is limited with respect to
the normal opening angle in accordance with the acceleration opening
degree." Id. i199 (boldface omitted). In other words, Toyoda discloses
limiting the throttle opening degree responsive to detecting a misfire
condition, but is admittedly silent as to gradually decreasing the throttle
opening degree limit.
4
Appeal2017-010813
Application 14/051,677
Minami discloses "a control apparatus for an internal combustion
engine that is provided with an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) device,
which recirculates a portion of exhaust gas of the internal combustion engine
as EGR gas to an intake passage of the internal combustion engine."
Minami i-f 8. Minami explains that "the quantity of the EGR gas, which
flows into the cylinder at the time of deceleration of the engine or at the time
of reacceleration of the engine after the deceleration, may become
excessively large to cause deterioration of the combustion state of the engine
11, possibly resulting in misfire." Id. i-f 39 (boldface omitted). Minami
discloses that a "misfire-avoidance control operation, which limits the
occurrence of the misfire, is executed by controlling the throttle opening
degree such that the intake air quantity does not decrease below the normal
combustion lower limit value." Id. i-f 40. In this regard, Appellant correctly
points out that "Minami is directed to a misfire-avoidance control routine
which decreases (and increases) the throttle opening degree based on an
intake air quantity (computed based on an estimated cylinder-inflow EGR
gas quantity), and not when a misfire state is detected." Appeal Br. 10
(italics omitted). In other words, Minami's control operation avoids a
possible misfire condition caused by excess EGR gas by controlling throttle
opening degree to prevent an intake air quantity from falling below a limit,
but does not control the throttle opening degree to address a detected misfire.
The Examiner does not explain, and it is not apparent, why a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have considered Minami' s teachings as to
control operation for avoiding a possible misfire condition to be instructive
as to the appropriate corrective control to be effected upon detection of an
actual misfire state as discussed in Toyoda, so as to prompt any modification
5
Appeal2017-010813
Application 14/051,677
of Toyoda's control operation, which is directed to addressing a detected
misfire.
Rejections based on obviousness must rest on a factual basis; in
making such a rejection, the Examiner has the initial burden of supplying the
requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is
patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. See In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). In this case, absent improper hindsight
reconstruction, we do not see a sufficient reasoned explanation, based on a
rational underpinning, as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to rnodify Toyoda-based on the teachings of l\1inami-to
gradually decrease the maximum throttle opening degree when a misfire
state is detected, and an adequate reason for such modification is not
otherwise evident from the record.
Moreover, although "Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's claim
that the actual throttle opening degree of Minami gradually decreases after
time t3" (Reply Br. 5), 3 we note that a claim "composed of several [features]
is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each [feature] was,
independently, known in the prior art" (KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Rather, a
sustainable obviousness rejection further needs to explain the reasoning by
which those findings support the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-30 (Fed. Cir.
3 Appellant also acknowledges that "the portion of Fig. 4C at time t3 pointed
out by the Examiner in the Advisory Action does in fact show the throttle
opening degree gradually decreasing during the 'misfire-avoidance control'
section." Appeal Br. 8.
6
Appeal2017-010813
Application 14/051,677
2009). In the present case, the Examiner's rejection fails to meet this
required standard.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met
the burden of establishing a proper case that independent claims 1 and 5 are
unpatentable based on the cited references. On this basis, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 5, or dependent claims 2--4 and 6-
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Toyoda, Fujino, and Minami.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 is reversed.
REVERSED
7