Ex Parte Veit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2016

11792898 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111792,898 02/28/2008
24972 7590 10/26/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guenter Veit
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.
BOSC.P4663US/l 1602872 5900
EXAMINER
VILAKAZI, SIZO BINDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUENTER VEIT and STEP AN KELLER
Appeal 2014-007 653
Application 11/792,898
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Guenter Veit and Stefan Keller (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 12, 14--17, and
20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Demura (US
6,450,147 B2, iss. Sept. 17, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-007653
Application 11/792,898
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 12, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter.
12. A method for operating a fuel system of an internal
combustion engine, comprising:
ascertaining a raw precontrol signal by taking into account
a predefined setpoint pressure in a fuel pressure accumulator of
the fuel system;
ascertaining a correction factor by taking into account (i)
the value of a fuel quantity flowing through a pressure regulating
device for the fuel pressure accumulator and (ii) actual pressure
in the fuel pressure accumulator;
ascertaining an adjusted precontrol signal by multiplying
the raw precontrol signal by the correction factor; and
precontrolling the pressure regulating device using the
adjusted precontrol signal.
DISCUSSION
Each of Appellants' independent claims 12, 20, and 21 requires
ascertaining (or means for ascertaining) a correction factor by taking into
account a fuel quantity flowing through a pressure regulating device and
actual pressure in the fuel pressure accumulator and ascertaining an adjusted
precontrol signal (or means for ascertaining an adjusted precontrol signal) by
multiplying the raw precontrol signal by the correction factor.
Appeal Br. 10, 11 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Demura
discloses ascertaining a correction factor (integral term DTi) by taking into
account the value of fuel flowing through the fuel pressure accumulator
(spill valve 54) and actual pressure in the fuel pressure accumulator.
Non-Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal2014-007653
Application 11/792,898
The Examiner acknowledges that Demura differs from the invention
claimed in claims 12, 20, and 21 in that in the claimed invention the raw
precontrol signal is multiplied by the correction factor to ascertain the
adjusted precontrol signal, whereas Demura adds the correction factor
(integral term DTi) to the raw precontrol signal to obtain the adjusted
precontrol signal. Ans. 4; see Demura, col. 7, 1. 19, equation (1)
(DT=FF+DTp+DTi). However, the Examiner finds that "[t]he exact
equation ... would be a matter dependent upon desired result and routine
experimentation" and that "[t]he formulas used by Demura ... and those set
forth in the current application are considered obvious equivalents."
Non-Final Act. 6. Thus, the Examiner determines that "it would have been
obvious ... to have incorporated the claimed formulas into the invention
disclosed by Demura" because "it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
or workable values or ranges involves only routine skill in the art." Id.
According to the Examiner,
although the specific equations for calculating the adjusted
precontrol signal are not identical, the process of deciding to
multiply as opposed to add a correction factor in an equation is
considered to be a matter of routine experimentation as opposed
to a novel step over the prior art, and thus would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Ans. 4.
Appellants submit that "the Examiner has not provided any
explanation regarding why or how the disclosed formulas of Demura are
equivalent to the disclosed formulas of the present specification." Appeal
Br. 8. Appellants also contend that "the Examiner's 'routine
experimentation' argument is logically incoherent." Id.
3
Appeal2014-007653
Application 11/792,898
Appellants and Demura both disclose control routines for controlling
the pressure of a fuel accumulator (i.e., Appellants' fuel accumulator 22 and
Demura's delivery pipe 53) by controlling a pressure regulating valve (i.e.,
Appellants' pressure regulating device 32 and Demura's spill valve 54).
Spec. 2, 11. 4--10, 22-28; Figs. 1, 2; Demura, col. 5, 11. 25--41; col. 6,
11. 20-62; id., Figs. 1, 4. However, Appellants' pressure regulating
device 32 and Demura's spill valve 54 are not functional equivalents in their
respective systems. Appellants' pressure regulating device 32 is not located
in the fuel supply line passing through presupply pump 16 and high-pressure
fuel pump 18, but, rather, communicates with fuel reservoir 14 by a separate
line (line 45). Spec. 5, 11. 28-30; Fig. 1. Demura's spill valve 54 is located
in the fuel supply line (low-pressure fuel passage 50) passing through feed
pump 46 and high-pressure fuel pump 47 and, thus, needs to be open during
the intake stroke of pump 4 7 and is closed during at least some portion of the
delivery stroke, with the duration of spill valve 54 being in the closed state
controlling the pressure in delivery pipe 53. Demura, col. 4, 1. 63---col. 5,
1. 41; Fig. 1. In this regard, Demura' spill valve 54 is more similar in
placement and function to Appellants' flow control valve or metering
unit 20, which is not the valve controlled by control unit 34. See Spec. 4,
1. 3; Fig. 1.
As a consequence of their different functions within their respective
systems, Appellants' pressure regulating device 32 and Demura's spill
valve 54 are controlled in different manners. More specifically, by way of
example, Appellants' pressure regulating device 32 may be a pressure
regulating valve having a spring-loaded valve element wherein a
prestressing force of the spring may be varied using an electromagnetic
4
Appeal2014-007653
Application 11/792,898
actuating force in order to adjust the opening pressure of the valve. Spec. 4,
11. 13-18. Thus, Appellants' control unit controls the current (precontrol
current IDRV) supplied to effect the electromagnetic actuating force. See
Spec. 6, 11. 3--4 ("The result of the multiplication in block 48 is precontrol
current lnRv by which pressure regulating device 32 is precontrolled.").
Demura, on the other hand, calculates a duty ratio (DT), which ranges
between 0% and 100% and which sets the valve closing start timing and
valve closing duration of spill valve 54, thereby controlling the fuel pressure
(P) in delivery pipe 53. Demura, col. 6, 1. 20-----col. 7, 1. 9.
As the Examiner appreciates (Non-Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 4), Appellants
and Demura use different formulas for effecting their control routines.
Appellants generate correction factor KF using characteristics map 46 based
on (i) the fuel flow ( qDRv) back from fuel accumulator 22 through pressure
regulating device 32 and (ii) actual pressure in fuel accumulator 22
measured by pressure sensor 36. Spec. 5, 11. 23-34; Fig. 2. Appellants then
multiply a raw precontrol signal generated by converting a setpoint pressure
in fuel pressure accumulator 22 to a raw precontrol current (I* DRV) by
correction factor KF to calculate the precontrol current (lnRv ). Spec. 5,
1. 34---6, 1. 4; Fig. 2. In order to calculate the duty ratio (DT), Demura uses a
formula DT=FF+DTp+DTi. Demura, col. 7, 1. 19 (equation (1)). The
Examiner does not explain cogently, and we do not discern, how Appellants'
formula for calculating the precontrol current (IDRv) and Demura's formula
for calculating the duty ratio (DT) could be considered "obvious
equivalents," especially in view of the aforementioned differences in
function between Appellants' controlled pressure regulating device 32 and
Demura's spill valve 54.
5
Appeal2014-007653
Application 11/792,898
The Examiner appears to be suggesting that the selection of
Appellants' formula in place of Demura's formula would be a matter
dependent upon desired result and routine experimentation. Non-Final
Act. 6. However, as the desired result of the calculation in Demura is a duty
ratio (DT), it is not apparent why a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have been prompted to use Appellants' formula, which calculates a
precontrol current (IDRv), and not a duty ratio, in Demura's system or
method. To the extent that the Examiner proposes to modify Demura's
formula by multiplying one or more of the remaining components (FF and
DTp) ofDemura's DT formula by integral term DTi, such a modification
lacks rational underpinnings, for the reasons set forth by Appellants. Reply
Br. 4--5. Moreover, the change in formula proposed by the Examiner is not a
mere discovery of optimum or workable values or ranges. Thus, we agree
with Appellants that the routine optimization principle alluded to by the
Examiner is inapplicable here.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12,
14--17, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Demura.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 12, 14--17, and 20-22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6