FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 7, 2020

2020002818 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 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.
14/800,061 07/15/2015 Seth Anthony Bryan 83554137; 67186-197 PUS 7291
46442 7590 12/07/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2020 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SETH ANTHONY BRYAN and
BRYAN MICHAEL BOLGER

Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 10–13, and 15–24, which

1 Appellant references an earlier appeal of this application. See Appeal Br.
1. Appellant is referring to Appeal No. 2018-006297, a decision of which
was mailed May 7, 2019. The Examiner’s rejections were affirmed, but the
affirmance was designated as New Grounds of rejection.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Ford
Global Technologies, LLC.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061

2
constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Appeal Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to controlling regenerative
braking to improve efficiency of an electrified vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 1. Method
claims 1 and 21, system claim 11, and apparatus claim 18 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A braking method, comprising:
when an accelerator pedal and a brake pedal of an
electrified vehicle are not depressed, permitting a first amount
of regenerative braking in the electrified vehicle if an upcoming
deceleration is detected; and
when the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal of the
vehicle are not depressed, permitting a second amount of
regenerative braking if the upcoming deceleration is not
detected, the second amount less than the first amount.3
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Suzuki US 2015/0183433 A1 July 2, 2015

3 Although not raised by the Examiner, the language “if the upcoming
deceleration is not detected” appears illogical since if a deceleration is not
detected, then how can it also be “upcoming,” and if a deceleration is
“upcoming” then how can it also be “not detected?” For purposes of this art
rejection under Section 103, we presume an upcoming deceleration can be
both detected and undetected.
Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–4, 6, 10–13, and 15–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Suzuki.
ANALYSIS
Appellant addresses each claim separately. See Appeal Br. 4–8. For
each of claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 18, and 21–24, Appellant presents separate
arguments, and they will each be separately addressed below. See Appeal
Br. 4–8. However, for claims 2–4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20, Appellant
contends that each such claim depends from another claim “and is patentable
for at least this reason.” Appeal Br. 5–7. These latter claims will stand or
fall with their respective parent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1
The Examiner references Paragraph 68 of Suzuki when rejecting this
claim. See Final Act. 4. Paragraph 68 discusses a “follow-up control”
which is a form of cruise control. See Suzuki ¶¶ 5, 8 (“[T]he driver’s foot
has left the accelerator pedal and brake pedal.”), 56, 58 (“When the cruise-
control switch 30 is ON, the [control unit] 130 executes follow-up control.”).
In accordance with this “follow-up control,” Paragraph 68 teaches that when
“a traffic light that is far away not being a red light or a yellow light,” then
“a weak regenerative amount” of braking is applied. On the other hand,
when “a traffic light that is far away being a red light or a yellow light,” then
“a strong regenerative amount” of braking is applied. Suzuki ¶ 68.
Appellant acknowledges Suzuki’s “weak” and “strong” application of
regenerative braking, but contends, “the vehicle of Suzuki does not
transition” to the “weak” state, but instead only teaches moving “to the
Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061

4
strong” state when deceleration is desired. Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br.
1–2. Claim 1, however, is silent as to any transitioning or moving from the
one state to the other because claim 1 merely recites two conditional events,
each permitting a different amount of braking based on whether the
condition (i.e., an upcoming deceleration) is detected or not.
Appellant more specifically contends that “[n]o portion of Suzuki
describes moving from the strong regenerative amount to the weak
regenerative amount.” Appeal Br. 4; see also id. at 5 (arguing “[n]o portion
of Suzuki describes changing from . . .”). Notwithstanding that claim 1 does
not require a transition, Appellant appears to be disregarding Suzuki’s
Figure 2 (see also Paragraphs 67, 68, 71, and 72 of Suzuki discussing Cases
A–H) which illustrates regenerative braking either “easing small,” “easing
large,” or maintaining. Appellant does not explain how the discussion and
illustration of these various cases fail to disclose “moving from the strong
regenerative amount to the weak regenerative amount” (or “changing from”)
as argued above.
Appellant also asserts that Suzuki’s “second amount is greater than,
not less than, the first amount.” Appeal Br. 4. However, consistent with
Appellant’s claim language, should a forthcoming deceleration be detected
(i.e., an upcoming traffic light being red or yellow), then Suzuki teaches
applying “a strong regenerative amount (Case D).” Suzuki ¶ 68. On the
other hand, consistent with Appellant’s claim language, should a
forthcoming deceleration not be detected (i.e., an upcoming traffic light not
being red or yellow), then Suzuki teaches applying “a weak regenerative
amount (Case C).” Appellant does not explain how Suzuki’s second amount
(“weak”) “is greater than, not less than, the first amount” (“strong”).
Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061

5
Appellant further argues that the recited regenerative braking occurs
“when both the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal are not depressed.”
Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2. In contrast, Appellant contends, “there is
no disclosure in Suzuki” of any easing “when an accelerator pedal and
brake pedal are not depressed.” Appeal Br. 5. We disagree because as
mentioned above, Suzuki states, when follow-up control is activated, “the
drivers’ foot has left the accelerator pedal and brake pedal.” Suzuki ¶ 8; see
also id. ¶¶ 5, 56, 58 (discussing cruise control).
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious in view of Suzuki.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the second
amount is no regenerative braking.” Appellant, in the Appeal Brief, does not
address this limitation but instead contends that claim 6 “recites that the
‘reducing comprises preventing regenerative braking’” and that this feature
is “not taught in Suzuki.” Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner explains that
Appellant “argues a limitation not in pending claim 6.” Ans. 5. We agree
that it is not clear where “reducing comprises preventing regenerative
braking” can be found in claim 6 (or even an antecedent basis for “reducing”
in parent claim 1). Appellant concurs stating that the Examiner “is correct
that the Appeal Brief misquoted the exact language of claim 6.” Reply Br.
2.
However, the Examiner also stated, in the Answer, that “a vehicle’s
braking may be no regenerative braking.” Ans. 5. On this point, Appellant
still contends that “the features of claim 6 are not taught in Suzuki” and that
Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061

6
“[t]he Examiner provides no factual basis to support the Examiner’s position
that Suzuki suggests the features of claim 6.” Reply Br. 2.
There is merit to Appellant’s contention because Suzuki addresses
“weak” braking, not “no” braking. Suzuki ¶ 68. The Examiner states that
“regenerative braking may drop” or “reduce to zero” (Final Act. 4), but does
not explain how a skilled person would be informed that Suzuki’s “weak”
braking is, actually, a disclosure of “no” or “zero” braking. Accordingly, the
Examiner does not make clear how Suzuki teaches the above limitation of
“no regenerative braking.” We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 6.
Claim 11
With respect to this independent claim, Appellant repeats the
contention discussed above that Suzuki only discloses transitioning “from a
weak regenerative amount to a strong regenerative amount,” and not vice-
versa. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant contends that this is especially the case
“when an accelerator pedal and a brake pedal are not depressed.” Appeal
Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2. To be clear, Appellant contends that Suzuki
does not disclose “applying more regenerative braking torque when an
upcoming deceleration is detected than when an upcoming deceleration is
not detected.” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2.
As above, Appellant appears to disregard the teachings of Suzuki’s
Figure 2 (i.e., “easing small,” “easing large,” or maintaining), and related
text. Appellant also appears to disregard the teachings of Paragraph 8 of
Suzuki which discusses the driver’s foot being removed from both the
Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061

7
accelerator pedal and the brake pedal. Accordingly, and based on the record
presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of clam 11.
Claim 16
With respect to this claim, the Examiner stated that a regenerative
braking assembly applies a braking torque “when an upcoming deceleration
is detected . . . and an accelerator pedal is not depressed (this is inherent with
a vehicle).” Final Act. 6; Ans. 6. Appellant, however, contends that “it is
not ‘inherent with a vehicle’ to apply more regenerative braking torque when
a deceleration is detected and an accelerator pedal is not depressed.” Appeal
Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. However, Appellant does not explain how or why it is
not “inherent with a vehicle” to not depress the accelerator pedal if
deceleration of the vehicle is detected, as expressed by the Examiner. See
also Ans. 6. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Claim 18
Independent claim 18 recites “a controller” for controlling
regenerative braking, and Appellant contends, “[n]o controller in Suzuki
lessens the regenerative braking.” Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner references
Paragraph 18 of Suzuki as disclosing the use of a controller to control
regenerative braking. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 7. Paragraph 18, indeed, states
that “the follow-up control unit may . . . execute regenerative braking
control.” Appellant also contends that Suzuki does not ease the follow-up
and execute regenerative braking “when an accelerator pedal and a brake
pedal are not depressed.” Appeal Br. 7. This matter of “follow-up control”
and when “the driver’s foot has left the accelerator pedal and brake pedal”
has already been discussed above. Suzuki ¶ 8. Accordingly, and based on
Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061

8
the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred when
rejecting claim 18 as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
Claim 21
Independent claim 21 recites, in part, “if the upcoming deceleration is
not detected, permitting a second amount of regenerative braking when the
pedal is in the second pedal position.” See also Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
contends, “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in Suzuki of ‘permitting’ a
second amount of regenerative braking when upcoming deceleration is not
detected.” Appeal Br. 7. To be clear, Appellant states that, in Suzuki, “there
is no change to the permitted amount of regenerative braking if the
upcoming deceleration is not detected.” Appeal Br. 7. Similar to that
discussed above, Appellant does not explain how Figure 2 of Suzuki, and its
associated text, fails to disclose a “change to the permitted amount of
regenerative braking” depending on the upcoming situation (i.e., Suzuki’s
Cases A–H). Appellant only says that this is the case. Accordingly, and
based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 21 as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
Claim 22
Regarding dependent claim 22 (which depends from claim 21),
Appellant contends that there is no teaching “in Suzuki of, after lifting off
the accelerator pedal, permitting the first amount of regenerative braking if
an upcoming deceleration is detected, and permitting a second amount of
regenerative braking if an upcoming deceleration is not detected.” Appeal
Br. 7. Appellant does not address Suzuki’s teaching of “weak” and “strong”
braking based on whether an upcoming traffic light is “not” red or yellow
(“weak”), or whether an upcoming traffic light is red or yellow (“strong”).
Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061

9
Suzuki ¶ 68. Appellant does not make clear how Suzuki’s disclosure fails to
teach the above limitation. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting this claim.
Claim 23
Appellant’s argument regarding claim 23 is a duplicate of that
presented above regarding claim 22, but with respect to a “lifting off the
brake pedal” rather than the “accelerator pedal” above. Appeal Br. 7. We
are not persuaded for reasons already discussed, and particularly Paragraph 8
of Suzuki which teaches follow-up control when “the driver’s foot has left
the accelerator pedal and brake pedal.” Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting this claim.
Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 21 and further recites “wherein the
second amount of regenerative braking is no regenerative braking.”
Appellant focuses on the “no” regenerative braking because “Suzuki always
permits regenerative braking.” Appeal Br. 8. Similar to claim 6 above,
there is merit to Appellant’s contention because Suzuki addresses “weak”
braking, not “no” braking. Suzuki ¶ 68. We do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 24.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 10–
13, 15–24
103 Suzuki 1–4, 10–13,
15–23
6, 24
Appeal 2020-002818
Application 14/800,061

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED IN PART