Ex Parte Yamazaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 2, 2018

14511504 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/511,504 10/10/2014
28395 7590 10/04/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Steven Yamazaki
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.
83473916 7622
EXAMINER
SHUDY, ANGELINA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK STEVEN YAMAZAKI, BERNARD D. NEFCY,
DAVID FARRELL, and XIAO YONG WANG
Appeal2018-000220
Application 14/511,504
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 8-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the Applicant and real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000220
Application 14/511,504
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to controllers for vehicle powertrains.
Spec. ,r 1. Claim 8, reproduced below with paragraph indentation added, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
8. A vehicle comprising:
a controller programmed to,
in response to
a vehicle speed falling below a speed threshold,
a decrease in driver demand, and
a change in steering position greater than a position
threshold,
maintain a friction element pressure of a friction element
configured to couple an engine with an electric machine, and
increase an amount of spark retard associated with an
engine cylinder.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Hughes
Meyers
Zillmer
Yamamoto
Russ
Ulrey
Inoue
us 5,519,617
US 2006/0074530 Al
US 2007/0162200 Al
US 2009/0149295 Al
US 2011/0203551 Al
US 2012/0029749 Al
JP 34214250 B2
The following rejections are before us for review:
May 21, 1996
Apr. 6, 2006
July 12, 2007
June 11, 2009
Aug. 25, 2011
Feb.2,2012
June 9, 2003
1. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Meyers, Inoue, and Yamamoto.
2. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Meyers, Inoue, Yamamoto, and Hughes.
2
Appeal2018-000220
Application 14/511,504
3. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Meyers, Inoue, Yamamoto, and Ulrey.
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Meyers, Inoue, Yamamoto, and Russ.
5. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Meyers, Inoue, Yamamoto, and Zillmer.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 8-10
over Meyers, Inoue, and Yamamoto
Appellants argue claims 8-10 as a group. Appeal Br. 2-3. We select
claim 8 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Meyers discloses the invention substantially
as claimed. Final Action 6-7. The Examiner relies on Inoue as explicitly
teaching to increase engine cylinder spark retard to decelerate in response to
a demand for engine braking by a driver. Id. at 6. The Examiner relies on
Yamamoto for friction coupling an engine to an electric machine. Id. at 7.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings
of the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. Id. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
improve engine braking performance, increase the amount of energy
regenerated, reduce brake shock, and provide braking torque. Id. at 8.
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing against the
combinability of the Examiner's prior art references. Appeal Br. 2-3.
Appellants argue that the purpose of Meyers is to prevent vehicle rollover.
Specifically, Appellants argue that:
3
Appeal2018-000220
Application 14/511,504
the examiner impermissibly creates a problem within the
context of Meyers, that does not otherwise exist, for the sole
purpose of finding reason to combine Inoue therewith. Still
further, there is no evidence that somehow applying the
teachings of Inoue to Meyers would actually improve Meyers'
ability to prevent vehicle rollover.
Id. Moreover, Appellants further argue that:
just because a secondary reference ( e.g., Yamamoto) does
something for a reason (e.g., to increase amount of energy
regenerated during a downshift) does not mean that one of
ordinary skill would apply that something to a primary
reference ( e.g., Meyers) for the same reason - particularly when
the reason the secondary reference is doing something has
nothing to do with the point of the primary reference.
Id. at 3. Appellants accuse the Examiner of engaging in impermissible
hindsight in formulating the obviousness rejection. Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that Inoue is merely relied on as
explicitly disclosing what the Examiner finds is implicitly disclosed in
Meyers, namely engine braking through increasing spark retard. Ans. 5.
The Examiner states that Yamamoto provides distribution control of braking
torque and regenerative torque of the motor during deceleration. Id. The
Examiner explains that Meyers' controller integrates driving torque with
braking torque. Id. According to the Examiner, this provides dynamic
stability during acceleration or deceleration in combination with cornering
maneuvering. Id. The Examiner reiterates that it would have been obvious
to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, essentially
restating the reasons given in the final rejection. Id.; Final Action 6-8.
In reply, Appellants argue that Inoue provides "aggressive" braking
response, to better reflect the braking intent of the driver. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants argue that such aggressive braking runs counter to Meyers'
4
Appeal2018-000220
Application 14/511,504
purpose of preventing roll-over. Id. Appellants further argue that "the
examiner has not provided any evidence that Yamamoto' s purported ability
to increase the amount of energy regenerated, to reduce brake shock, and to
provide desired braking torque would improve Meyers' ability to prevent
roll-over." Id.
Appellants claim a "controller." Claims App., claim 8. The controller
receives input information from three sources, namely: ( 1) vehicle speed,
(2) driver demand, and (3) steering position. Id. The controller, in response
to logic programmed into it, directs two outputs, namely: (1) friction based
coupling of an engine to an electric machine; and (2) an amount of spark
retard. Id. Apart from receiving the recited input and directing the recited
output, claim 8 does not recite any particular purpose that is to be
accomplished by the invention. In other words, as long as the inputs and
outputs are received and logically directed, claim 8 is not limited to
accomplishing any particular purpose.
Meyers discloses a control system for controlling an automotive
vehicle. Meyers, Abstract. In Meyers, controller 26 receives information
from a number of sensors, including speed sensor 20 and steering wheel
angle sensor 35. Id. ,r 36. Meyers also receives input from a throttle
opening sensor. Id. ,r 59. In response to control inputs, Meyers' controller
directs outputs to the wheels such as applying/limiting torque and applying
brakes. Id. Fig. 9.
Inoue explicitly discloses using spark retard to facilitate engine
braking. Inoue, Abstract. Yamamoto is directed to a hybrid vehicle control
apparatus. Yamamoto, Abstract. Yamamoto's electric motor 11 may be
driven by wheels 14 and by engine 12 to generate electrical energy. Id. ,r 45.
5
Appeal2018-000220
Application 14/511,504
Yamamoto uses engine 12 as a braking source. Id. ,r 48. Braking torque is
transmitted to wheels 14 via clutch 17, transmission 20, and differential 16.
Id. Clutch 17 also frictionally connects engine 12 to electric motor 11. Id.
,r 48, Fig. 1. Driving torque of electric motor 11 is controlled by motor
control apparatus 30.
Digital logic controllers have become ubiquitous throughout our
economy, including, but certainly not limited to, the automotive industry.
Persons of ordinary skill understand that, if they want to achieve a particular,
controlled outcome, they identify certain parameters that affect that
outcome, obtain information about those parameters via sensing devices,
employ actuators or similar devices to effectuate output commands from the
controller, and then program the logic of the controller to generate the
desired output commands based on the information received from the input
sensors.
We find unpersuasive Appellants' argument that the teachings of
Meyers should be limited to controlling vehicle roll-over. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that control operations to prevent
vehicle rollover would be applicable to related aspects of vehicle
maneuvering. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the
same purpose as that disclosed in Appellants' Specification in order to
support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972). This
follows from the principle that "that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
6
Appeal2018-000220
Application 14/511,504
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that the teachings of Inoue and
Yamamoto may be applied to improve Meyers' braking performance,
braking torque, brake shock, and regenerated energy. Ans. 6. The Examiner
further notes that Appellants' Specification acknowledges the desirability of
achieving this outcome, which reinforces the Examiner's finding that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the
combination proposed by the Examiner. Id. citing Spec. ,r,r 30-32, 60.
Appellants' Specification acknowledges that a typical engine
shutdown and restart procedure may introduce time lag in delivery of torque
when a driver first releases the accelerator pedal and, shortly thereafter,
depresses the pedal. Spec. ,r,r 31, 32. This may occur in connection with a
tum or approaching a highway entrance. Id. Such shortfall in torque
delivery may be "disagreeable" to a driver. Id. ,r 32.
A reason to modify a prior art reference may be found explicitly or
implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the "interrelated teachings of
multiple patents"; "any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at
the time of invention and addressed by the patent"; and the background
knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21)). "[T]he analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An
implicit motivation to combine exists when the improvement is technology-
independent and the combination of references results in a product that is
7
Appeal2018-000220
Application 14/511,504
more desirable. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v. CH Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
All of the technology needed to address the "time lag" problem
identified in paragraphs 3 0 and 31 of Appellants' Specification is found in
the Examiner's applied prior art references. Appellants present neither
evidence, technical reasoning, nor persuasive argument as to why combining
the prior art in the manner proposed by the Examiner requires more than
ordinary skill. See generally, Appeal Br., Reply Br. The driver
dissatisfaction acknowledged by Appellants (Spec. ,r 32) provides ample
motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the combination.
Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1328-29 (explaining that "any [known] need or
problem" may provide a reason to modify the prior art). Such motivation
also serves to dispense with Appellants' hindsight argument. See In re Cree,
Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 702 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that a hindsight
argument is of no moment where the Examiner provides a sufficient, non-
hindsight reason to combine the references).
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claims 8-10.
Unpatentability of Claims 11-14
over combinations based on Meyers, Inoue, and Yamamoto
Claims 11-14 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 8. Claims
App. Appellants do not argue for the patentability of these claims apart
from their respective dependency from claim 8. Appeal Br. 3. Inasmuch as
8
Appeal2018-000220
Application 14/511,504
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8, Appellants' arguments based
solely on the dependency of these claims from claim 8 does not apprise us of
Examiner error. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claims 11-14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8-14 is 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
9