FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2020002369 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

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.
14/171,413 02/03/2014 Jinkoo Lee 67600-166(83389399) 6529
32997 7590 12/02/2020
TUNG & ASSOCIATES
7010 Middlebelt Road
Garden City, MI 48135
EXAMINER
ODEH, NADEEM N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 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):
rwt@tungassoc.com
tungassoc@aol.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JINKOO LEE, DALE SCOTT CROMBEZ, DANIEL A. GABOR,
and KEREM BAYAR
____________

Appeal 2020-002369
Application 14/171,413
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, CARL M. DeFRANCO, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated July 27, 2018, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real
party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 26, 2018, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002369
Application 14/171,413

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention “relate[s] to a regenerative braking control
system and method” that accounts for “front tire impact events.” Spec.
para. 1.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A regenerative braking control system for an electric
vehicle, comprising:
at least one sensor configured to sense in response to a
front tire impact event at least one of wheel slip and vehicle
motion and transmit a sensor signal responsive to the front tire
impact event during vehicle braking where regenerative
braking torque is applied at a first level at rear wheels of the
vehicle; and
a regenerative powertrain interfacing with the at least one
sensor, the regenerative powertrain configured to reduce
regenerative braking torque from the first level to a current
level at the rear wheels of the vehicle by a determined
magnitude of reduction responsive to receiving the sensor
signal from the at least one sensor at front wheels of the
vehicle, the magnitude of the reduction of the regenerative
braking torque at the rear wheels is determined based on and
correspondingly proportional to a magnitude of the at least one
of sensed wheel slip at the front wheels and vehicle motion, the
regenerative powertrain configured to reduce the regenerative
braking torque responsive to a determination that the front tire
impact event is occurring during vehicle braking, the
determination of whether the front tire impact event is
occurring and corresponding reduction of regenerative braking
torque repeating continuously if it is determined that vehicle
Appeal 2020-002369
Application 14/171,413

3

braking is currently being applied and the front tire impact
event is occurring.

REJECTIONS

I. The Examiner rejects claims 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Krueger,2 as evidenced by Lotito.3
II. The Examiner rejects claims 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Krueger and Shaffer.4
III. The Examiner rejects claims 1–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krueger, as evidenced by Lotito, and
Shaffer.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 17 requires, inter alia, “reducing application of
regenerative braking torque . . . by a determined magnitude of reduction . . .
[wherein] the magnitude of the reduction of the regenerative braking torque
is determined based on and correspondingly proportional to a magnitude of
the at least one of a sensed wheel slip.” Appeal Br. 7–8 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added).
The Examiner finds “Krueger discloses a regenerative braking control
system [and] method” including, inter alia, “determining a desired
magnitude of change, including a magnitude of decrease, of regenerative
braking torque when at least a wheel slip is sensed.” Final Act. 10–11
(emphasis omitted). According to the Examiner, “when the magnitude of

2 Krueger et al., US 2011/0130937 Al, published June 2, 2011.
3 Lotito et al., US 6,275,763 Bl, issued Aug. 14, 2001.
4 Shaffer et al., US 2007/0108838 Al, published May 17, 2007.
Appeal 2020-002369
Application 14/171,413

4

wheel slip is relatively small, then a relatively small magnitude of decrease
in regenerative braking torque is determined.” Id. at 12.
Appellant argues that “it would not be reasonable to interpret
‘proportional to’ in any other manner than ‘directly’ proportional to in light
of the disclosure . . . of Appellant’s invention” and “the most common
dictionary meaning of ‘proportional to’,” which means “‘corresponding in
size, degree, or intensity.’” Appeal Br. 23 (citing Spec. para. 14;5
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proportional). Thus,
according to Appellant, “the magnitude of reduction of regenerative
braking torque is correspondingly proportional in degree (i.e., directly
proportional to) the magnitude of the sensed front wheel slip.” Id. at 24
(emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner contends that Appellant’s position is
“unsupported by Appellant’s original disclosure because the original
disclosure does not explicitly, implicitly, or inherently suggest any
relationship of direct proportionality nor does the original disclosure recite
the language ‘correspondingly.’” Examiner Answer (dated Nov. 22, 2019,
hereinafter “Ans.”) 17. According to the Examiner, “Krueger discloses a
‘correspondingly proportional to’ relationship between change in magnitude
of regenerative braking torque and wheel slip detected because when wheel
slip is relatively small, a relatively small decrease in magnitude is
determined, and when wheel slip is relatively large, a relatively large
decrease in magnitude is determined.” Id. at 17–18.

5 “The magnitude of regenerative braking torque reduction may be
proportional to the magnitude of wheel slip which is detected at the front
wheels105 during the front tire impact event.”
Appeal 2020-002369
Application 14/171,413

5

During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (alteration in original) (citing In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). This means that the words of the claim must be
given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the
specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). An
appropriate definition of the term “proportional,” as understood by a person
of ordinary skill in the art of mathematics, is that a first quantity “is a
constant multiple” of a second quantity such that the first and second
quantities “hav[e] the same or a constant ratio or relation.”6 This definition
is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which states that “[t]he
magnitude of the reduction [of the] regenerative braking torque . . . may be
in proportion to the magnitude of wheel slippage.” Spec. para. 16 (emphasis
added).
As such, in light of Appellant’s Specification, we construe the
limitation “the magnitude of the reduction of the regenerative braking torque
is . . . proportional to a magnitude of the . . . wheel slip” to mean that “the
magnitude of the reduction of the regenerative braking torque,” i.e., first
quantity, is “a constant multiple,” of the magnitude of the wheel slip, i.e.,
second quantity. In other words, the magnitude of the reduction of the
regenerative braking torque and the magnitude of the wheel slip are related
by a constant ratio, that is, are related by a “proportion.” In contrast,

6 See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proportional.
Appeal 2020-002369
Application 14/171,413

6

Krueger merely discloses that if the magnitude of wheel slip is small, then
the magnitude of the reduction of the regenerative braking torque is likewise
small, whereas, if the magnitude of wheel slip is large, then the magnitude of
the reduction of the regenerative braking torque is also large. See Krueger,
paras. 40, 41. However, merely having both the magnitude of wheel slip and
the magnitude of the reduction of the regenerative braking torque be either
small or large does not mean that the magnitude of the reduction of the
regenerative braking torque and the magnitude of the wheel slip are related
by “a constant multiple,” that is, by a “proportion.”
For example, we note that Krueger discloses relating the desired
magnitude of change of the regenerative braking torque and the magnitude
of wheel slip “preferably [by] an exponential function.” See Krueger, para.
42 (emphasis added). A skilled artisan would thus understand that the
magnitude of the reduction of the regenerative braking torque is related to
the magnitude of wheel slip by an exponent. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d
513, 516 (CCPA 1962) (explaining that an artisan must be presumed to
know something about the art apart from what the reference discloses.).
Here, the skilled artisan would then acknowledge that an “exponential
function” does not constitute a “constant multiple,” i.e., a “proportion.” The
Examiner’s reliance on Lotito to disclose that a skilled artisan would know
wheel slip occurs when a wheel travels over a bump does not remedy the
deficiency of Krueger discussed supra. See Final Act. 11.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of claims 17–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Krueger, as evidenced by Lotito.

Appeal 2020-002369
Application 14/171,413

7

Rejection II
The Examiner’s use of the Shaffer disclosure does not remedy the
deficiency of Krueger discussed above. See Final Act. 12–13. As such, for
the same reasons, discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 17–20 as unpatentable over Krueger and Shaffer.

Rejection III
Each of independent claims 1 and 9 includes the same limitation
discussed supra and the Examiner makes the same findings. See Final Act.
18, 26. As noted above, the Examiner’s use of the Shaffer and Lotito
disclosures does not remedy the deficiency of Krueger discussed above. See
id. at 17, 19, 24–25, 27. Therefore, for similar reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1–16 as
unpatentable over Krueger, as evidenced by Lotito, and Shaffer.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
17–20 102(a)(1) Krueger 17–20
17–20 103 Krueger,
Shaffer
17–20
1–16 103 Krueger,
Lotito, Shaffer
1–16
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED