Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2020

14643195 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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.
14/643,195 03/10/2015 Wei Xu 83502899 5893
28395 7590 07/20/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
LAUGHLIN, CHARLES S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2846
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2020 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WEI XU and FAZAL URRAHMAN SYED
____________

Appeal 2019-005437
Application 14/643,195
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY ROBERTSON, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Mar. 10, 2015, the
Final Office Action dated July 27, 2018 (“Final Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed Jan. 4, 2019, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
dated May 16, 2019, and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed July
10, 2019.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005437
Application 14/643,195

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal “relates to detecting a swapped cable
connection to an electric machine.” Spec. ¶ 1. According to the
Specification, an electric machine, such as those in hybrid-electric or all-
electric vehicles, rotates in a direction that is based on a phase rotation
sequence of the voltage or current applied to the conductors. Id. ¶ 2. The
Specification discloses, as background to the invention, a controller that
monitors the direction of rotation may flag an issue if the direction is
different than an expected direction of rotation. Id. Claim 1, reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of
Appellant’s invention (paragraphing and emphasis added).
1. A vehicle comprising:
a controller programmed to, in response to a power-on
condition, cause an inverter to
inject a voltage having a predetermined phase
rotation sequence into an electric machine and measure
resulting current via a current sensor, and
output a signal identifying a phase rotation
sequence corresponding to one of a plurality of pairs of
predetermined sequence current magnitudes that are
closest in value to sequence current magnitudes derived
from the current.
Independent claims 11 and 16, directed to a vehicle and a method,
respectively, similarly require a controller and an inverter “identifying a
phase rotation sequence corresponding to one of a plurality of pairs of
predetermined sequence current magnitudes that are closest in value to
sequence current magnitudes derived from the current.” Appeal Br. 11–13
(Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-005437
Application 14/643,195

3
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows. Final Act. 3–19.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ References/Basis
1, 11, 16 112(b) Indefinite
1, 3–5, 7–11,
13–17, 19 103 Wang, Kachi
2, 12, 20 103 Wang, Kachi, Rowell
6, 18 103 Wang, Kachi, Oppenheim

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering
the positions of both the Examiner and Appellant, we are persuaded the
Examiner reversibly erred for the reasons set forth in Appellant’s briefs and
discussed below.

Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 11, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite because the term “closest in value” is not
defined by the claim and the Specification does not provide a standard for
ascertaining the requisite degree. Final Act. 2. The Examiner acknowledges
Appeal 2019-005437
Application 14/643,195

4
that comparing one value against another is a binary decision, finds the
Specification discloses a simple comparison between the magnitude of a
read input and a predetermined threshold, and concludes selecting a
magnitude that is “closest in value to” implies that this is not a binary
decision. Ans. 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶ 62, Fig. 4 (item 310)).
We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 2–4) that,
consistent with the Specification, the claims require a comparison of the
magnitude of the differences rather than a comparison to the magnitude of a
read input, therefore the claim does not lack clarity with respect to a degree
of closeness. As Appellant explains, the claim does not require closeness of
an input value, but, rather, relates to which of “one of a plurality of pairs of
predetermined sequence current magnitudes” recited in the claims is closest
to an actual magnitude. Appeal Br. 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶ 57). Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b).

Obviousness Rejections over Wang and Kachi
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Kachi alone and in further
view of secondary references. Final Act. 3–19.
With regarding to independent claims 1, 11, and 16, the Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to modify Wang’s method to include
Kachi’s phase rotation sequence determination method, in which phase
sequence patterns are based on measured current polarities, to determine
whether the connections to the motor are mismatched. Id. at 4, 7–8, 10
(citing Kachi 13:32–65, Figs. 3A, 3B; Wang ¶¶ 52–54).
Appeal 2019-005437
Application 14/643,195

5
Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Wang and Kachi
does not yield the claimed invention, but, rather, a system that detects open
connections of the motor using Wang’s positive and negative sequence
components and detecting the phase rotation sequence according to Kachi’s
method of detecting peak currents for each phase. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant
contends Kachi teaches detecting a current in each phase for every sampling
period and the values recognized as higher than or equal to peak values are
newly written as peak values used for comparison. Id. (citing Kachi 12:66–
67, 13:13–16). Thus, Appellant argues that neither Wang nor Kachi teaches
identifying a phase rotation sequence corresponding to one of a plurality of
pairs of predetermined sequence current magnitudes that are closest in value
to sequence current magnitudes derived from the current as required by each
of the independent claims. Id. at 5–7.
The Examiner responds that Wang does not explicitly disclose
determining the phase rotation sequence to determine the connectivity status
because it is a standard technique used in the art of motor controls. Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds Kachi discloses more details of determining the phase
current sequences by comparing currents against a predetermined threshold
to determine if the cable connection to the motor is good. Id. at 6. The
Examiner finds that Kachi and Wang are both accomplishing the same task,
but Kachi explicitly teaches how the positive and negative sequence currents
are used to determine the phase rotation sequence and to output the
connectivity status of the motor. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error.
During examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
Appeal 2019-005437
Application 14/643,195

6
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also,
Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d
984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he analysis that ‘should be made explicit’
refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to
the court’s analysis.”).
Applying the above legal principals, we find the Examiner’s
combination of Wang and Kachi’s teachings is insufficient to support the
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 16 because the combination does
not disclose all of the limitations of the claims. To establish prima facie
obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught
or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA
1974). Based on the record cited in this Appeal, the Examiner’s modification
of Wang relies on improper hindsight rather than an apparent reason to
combine known elements in the fashion claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 419, 418 (2007). As Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 6;
Reply Br. 2), Kachi determines the phase rotation sequence based on the
peak phase current values for each of the phase currents rather than based on
predetermined sequence current magnitudes and sequence current
magnitudes derived from the current, therefore Kachi does not teach or
suggest identifying the phase rotation sequence as corresponding to one of a
plurality of pairs of predetermined sequence current magnitudes that are
closed in value to sequence current magnitudes derived from the current as
Appeal 2019-005437
Application 14/643,195

7
required by the claims. Appellant’s argument is supported by the record.
Kachi 13:13–16, 13: 44–54.
In view of the above and for the reasons provided in the Appeal Brief
and the Reply Brief, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 11, and 16. Because the Examiner does not rely on the secondary
references to cure the deficiencies of Wang and Kachi discussed above, we
likewise affirm the rejections of all of the dependent claims as well.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons and those the Appellant provides, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–
11, 13–17,
19
103 Wang, Kachi
1, 3–5, 7–
11, 13–17,
19
2, 12, 20 103 Wang, Kachi, Rowell 2, 12, 20
6, 18 103 Wang, Kachi, Oppenheim 6, 18
Overall
Outcome 1–20

REVERSED