FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 20202020002369 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation