Ex Parte Tokumochi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2017

13783899 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 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.
13/783,899 03/04/2013 Daisuke TOKUMOCHI RYM-2018-3113 1537
23117 7590 10/30/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
EVANS, GARRETT F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAISUKE TOKUMOCHI
and MOTOYOSHI HATTA1
Appeal 2017-001840
Application 13/783,899
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 This paper is captioned by inventor name according to our pre-AIA
convention. The Applicant/Appellant and real party in interest is Denso
Corporation. (See App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2017-001840
Application 13/783,899
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—3, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “a controller for a hybrid vehicle
equipped with a brake booster of negative-pressure type.” (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 2, reproduced below, exemplify the subject matter on appeal:
1. A controller for a hybrid vehicle which is equipped with an
engine; a motor generator disposed in a power transmitting sys­
tem between the engine and a wheel; a negative-pressure type
brake booster amplifying a stepping-in force of a brake pedal in
order to increase a braking force of a brake by using of a negative
pressure in an intake passage of the engine; an EGR valve adjust­
ing a quantity of an exhaust gas recirculating into the intake pas­
sage; and an automatic brake unit electronically controlling the
braking force of the brake,
the controller comprising:
a negative-pressure-determination portion for determining
whether the negative pressure is insufficient based on the nega­
tive pressure and a decrease amount of the negative pressure at a
time of a deceleration of the hybrid vehicle;
an EGR-close control portion for performing an EGR-close
control in which the EGR valve is driven from an open position
to a close position when the negative-pressure determination por­
tion determines that the negative pressure is insufficient; and
an automatic brake unit for performing a braking-force assist
control to compensate the braking force of the brake when the
negative pressure is not restored to a target negative pressure in
2
Appeal 2017-001840
Application 13/783,899
a specified time after the negative-pressure-determination por­
tion determines that the negative pressure is insufficient even
though the EGR-close control is performed; wherein:
the EGR-close control portion continues performing the
EGR-close control also while the automatic brake unit performs
the braking-force assist control.
2. A controller for a hybrid vehicle which is equipped with an
engine; a motor generator and a transmission disposed in a power
transmitting system between the engine and a wheel; a negative-
pressure type brake booster amplifying a stepping-in force of a
brake pedal in order to increase a braking force of a brake by
using of a negative pressure in an intake passage of the engine;
and an EGR valve adjusting a quantity of an exhaust gas recircu­
lating into the intake passage,
the controller comprising:
a negative-pressure-determination portion for determining
whether the negative pressure is insufficient based on the nega­
tive pressure and a decrease amount of the negative pressure at a
time of a deceleration of the hybrid vehicle;
an EGR-close control portion for performing an EGR-close
control in which the EGR valve is driven from an open position
to a close position when the negative-pressure determination por­
tion determines that the negative pressure is insufficient; and
an engine-speed-increase portion for performing an engine-
speed increase control in which an engine speed of the engine is
increased by using of at least one of the motor-generator and the
transmission when the negative-pressure-determination portion
determines that the negative pressure is insufficient even though
the EGR-close control is performed; wherein:
the EGR-close control portion continues performing the
EGR-close control also while the engine-speed-increase portion
performs the engine-speed increase control.
3
Appeal 2017-001840
Application 13/783,899
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ichimoto et al. US 5,826,559 Oct. 27, 1998
Kamiya et al. US 2003/0004635 Al Jan. 2, 2003
Morimura JP 2009-166695 A July 30,2009
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morimura, Ichimoto, and Kamiya. (See Final Act. 2—5.)
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morimura and Ichimoto. (See Final Act. 5—8.)
3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morimura, Ichimoto, and Kamiya. (See Final Act. 8.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Morimura, Ichimoto, and Kamiya teach the
limitations of claim 1, including those regarding the EGR valve and the
automatic brake unit. (Final Act. 2-4.) The Examiner additionally finds that
it would have been expected and obvious, as a mere detail of
implementation with no new or unexpected result, that the EGR-
close control and the braking-force assist control be performed
simultaneously until sufficient negative pressure is restored
because each of the EGR-close control and the braking-force
assist control better mitigates a circumstance of insufficient
negative pressure.
(Id. at 4—5.)
4
Appeal 2017-001840
Application 13/783,899
Appellants first argue that “Ichimoto does not teach or suggest that the
braking-force assist control is performed while the vehicle is running.”
(App. Br. 10.) The Examiner responds that “Ichimoto in fact teaches [EGR—
close control] being performed while the vehicle is running (e.g.
“VACUUM SECURING CONTROL AT VEHICLE RUNNING”, SI 10,
Fig. 12).” (Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner that the cited portions of
Ichimoto do teach such control while the vehicle is running. (See id.)
Appellants next argue that “Kamiya does not teach or suggest how to
perform the EGR-close control and the braking-force assist control.” (App.
Br. 10.) We agree with the Examiner that this argument is not persuasive
because Kamiya is relied upon only to teach braking-force assist control, not
EGR-close control. (See Ans. 6.)
Appellants further argue that “it is not obvious from the cited
references to perform the braking-force assist control while the EGR-close
control is performed” and “the combination of these references to allegedly
arrive at the invention of claim 1 involves impermissible hindsight.” (Id. at
10, 11.) The Examiner responds that performing the braking-force assist
control while the EGR-close control is performed “is simply the sum total of
each feature relied upon in the references” and reiterates that this is “no
more than a mere detail of implementation with no new or unexpected result
beyond the sum total of each feature relied upon in the references.” (Ans.
7.) The Examiner observes that hindsight reconstruction is proper “so long
as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure.” (Ans. 7,
citing In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971).)
5
Appeal 2017-001840
Application 13/783,899
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
combine. The Examiner finds that the combination would be “the sum total
of each feature relied upon in the references,” which included (a) Ichimoto’s
EGR control, found to “better improve fuel economy” and “better maintain
negative pressure for braking” and (b) Kamiya’s automatic brake unit, found
to “better maintain pressure for braking.” (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner has
thus established a motivation to add each of these features to Morimura, and
Appellants do not dispute those motivations. We conclude that it is
sufficient for the Examiner to have articulated separate rational reasons to
add each of the EGR valve and the automatic brake unit to Morimura, and
that the Examiner need not have separately provided a reason to use both at
the same time. We note that Appellants provide no evidence or argument
that it would have been impossible or even undesirable to use multiple
methods at once to ensure adequate braking force. And, because the
Examiner has provided a rational reason for one of skill in the art to have
made the modifications, there is no improper hindsight problem.
For these reasons, we sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3
The Examiner finds Morimura and Ichimoto teach most of the
limitations of claim 2, including those regarding the engine speed increase
portion. (Final Act. 2-4.) The Examiner additionally finds that
it would have been expected and obvious, as a mere detail of
implementation with no new or unexpected result, that the
EGR-close control and the engine-speed-increase control be
performed simultaneously until sufficient negative pressure is
restored because each of the EGR-close control and the engine-
speed-increase control better mitigates a circumstance of
insufficient negative pressure.
6
Appeal 2017-001840
Application 13/783,899
(Final Act. 7.)
Appellants argue “Ichimoto does not teach or suggest that the engine-
speed increase control is performed while the vehicle is running.” (App. Br.
13.) This argument is unpersuasive because, as the Examiner observes, the
rejection relies on Morimura, not Ichimoto, for the engine-speed-increase
control. (See Final Act. 6; Ans. 2—3.) Appellants further argue “the
combination would not teach or suggest. . . performing the engine-speed
increase control while the EGR-close control is performed.” (Id. ) We find
this argument unpersuasive for reasons similar to those explained in
connection with claim 1, namely that the Examiner provides rational reason
add each of the EGR-close control and the engine-speed-increase control,
and we do not agree that the Examiner needed to separately supply a reason
to perform both.
For these reasons, we sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim 2, as
well as the same rejection of claim 3, for which no additional arguments are
offered.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—3 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7