Hafiz Shafeek. Khafagy et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2019

15176315 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2019)

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.
15/176,315 06/08/2016 Hafiz Shafeek KHAFAGY 83667449 8602
28395 7590 07/30/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
JIN, GEORGE C.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2019 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 HAFIZ SHAFEEK KHAFAGY,
ERIC MICHAEL RADEMACHER,
HANK L. KWONG, SIRAJ SIDDIQUI, and
GIUSEPPE DOMENICO SUFFREDINI
____________________

Appeal 2018-009224
Application 15/176,3151
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-009224
Application 15/176,315

2
According to Appellants, their invention “relates to control systems
for vehicle engines.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are the independent
claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the
appealed claims.
1. A vehicle comprising:
an engine configured to auto-start and auto-stop;
an automatic transmission having a gear selector; and
a controller programmed to, in response to the gear
selector being in a neutral position for a predetermined time
period that begins with a shift of the gear selector into the neutral
position, command the engine to auto-stop.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1, 2, 7–9, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Sangameswaran et al. (US 8,690,731 B1, iss.
Apr. 8, 2014) (hereinafter “Sangameswaran”);
II. Claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sangameswaran and Mueller et al. (US 6,502,908 B1, iss.
Jan. 7, 2003) (hereinafter “Mueller”);
III. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sangameswaran, Mueller, and Geissenhoener
(US 2014/0149022 A1, pub. May 29, 2014);

2 We reorder certain rejections relative to the order set forth during
prosecution. See, e.g., Answer 2–10.
Appeal 2018-009224
Application 15/176,315

3
IV. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sangameswaran and Bonnet et al. (US 2005/0246081 A1, pub.
Nov. 3, 2005) (hereinafter “Bonnet”);
V. Claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Mizutani (US 6,676,565 B2, iss. Jan. 13, 2004);
VI. Claims 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Mizutani and Mueller; and
VII. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mizutani,
Mueller, and Geissenhoener.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a
controller programmed to, in response to the gear selector being in a neutral
position for a predetermined time period that begins with a shift of the gear
selector into the neutral position, command the engine to auto-stop.” Appeal
Br., Claims App. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is in error,
because Sangameswaran does not disclose such a controller. See, e.g., id.
at 4–6. Based on our review of the record, we agree with Appellants.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Sangameswaran discloses
commanding the engine to auto-stop when the gear selector is in neutral and
“two specific conditions [occur;] (i.e., [the] vehicle speed [is] close to zero[,]
and the accelerator pedal [is] released” (id. at 4), and, thus, Sangameswaran
does not disclose a controller programmed to command the engine to auto-
stop in response to the gear selector being in a neutral position for a
predetermined period of time. In response, the Examiner clarifies that
Appeal 2018-009224
Application 15/176,315

4
Sangameswaran discloses the controller programmed as claimed because
Sangameswaran “must” require a ‘“predetermined’ time . . . [to] auto[-]stop
the engine after the gear is in neutral” and the two above-noted specific
conditions occur. Answer 12 (emphasis omitted). Restated, according to the
Examiner, in Sangameswaran, when (i) the gear selector is in neutral, (ii) the
vehicle speed is close to zero, and (iii) the accelerator pedal is released,
Sangameswaran’s controller is programmed to command the engine to auto-
stop after a predetermined time.
We do not sustain the rejection, however, as the Examiner does not
support adequately the above determination. It is only supposition on the
part of the Examiner, unsupported by anything in the record, that
Sangameswaran’s controller is programmed to command the engine to auto-
stop after a predetermined time. It may be, for example, that
Sangameswaran’s controller immediately commands the engine to auto-stop
when the gear selector is in neutral, the vehicle speed is close to zero, and
the accelerator pedal is released. Alternatively, it may be, for example, that
Sangameswaran’s controller commands the engine to auto-stop when the
gear selector is in neutral, the vehicle speed is close to zero, and the
accelerator pedal is released, over different time intervals that do not meet
the claim recitation of “a predetermined time.” Without further explanation
or evidence, the Examiner does not support adequately the rejection.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2 and 7–9 that depend from, and
which the Examiner rejects with, claim 1.
Appeal 2018-009224
Application 15/176,315

5
Independent claim 17 recites “auto-stopping the engine in response to
the automatic transmission being in the park or neutral position for a
predetermined period of time that begins with a shift of the automatic
transmission to the park or neutral position.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The
Examiner rejects claim 17 for reasons similar to those the Examiner rejects
claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain claim 17’s anticipation rejection, or the
rejection of dependent claims 18–20, for reasons similar to the reasons we
do not sustain claim 1’s rejection.

Rejections II–IV
Claims 3–6 depend from independent claim 1. The Examiner does
not rely on Mueller, Geissenhoener, or Bonnet to disclose anything that
remedies the above-discussed deficiency in claim 1’s rejection. Thus, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3–6.

Rejection V
Independent claim 10 recites, in relevant part, “a controller
programmed to, in response to the gear selector being in a park position for a
predetermined time period that begins with a shift of the gear selector into
the park position, command the engine to auto-stop.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because
Mizutani does not disclose the controller, as claimed. See, e.g., id. at 6–7.
Based on our review of the record, we agree with Appellants.
Specifically, Appellants argue that “Mizutani simply discloses that the
engine is auto-stopped when the automatic transmission is in the parking
position” (id. at 6), and, thus, Mizutani does not disclose a controller
Appeal 2018-009224
Application 15/176,315

6
programmed to command the engine to auto-stop in response to the gear
selector being in a park position for a predetermined period of time. In
response, the Examiner states that Mizutani discloses the controller
programmed as claimed because Mizutani “must” require a
‘“predetermined’ time . . . [to] auto[-]stop the engine after the gear is in
park.” Answer 12 (emphasis omitted).
We do not sustain the rejection, however, as the Examiner does not
support adequately the above determination. It is only supposition on the
part of the Examiner, unsupported by anything in the record, that Mizutani’s
controller is programmed to command the engine to auto-stop after a
predetermined time. It may be, for example, that Mizutani’s controller
immediately commands the engine to auto-stop when the gear selector is in
park. Alternatively, it may be, for example, that Mizutani’s controller
commands the engine to auto-stop when the gear selector is in park over
different time intervals that do not meet the claim recitation of “a
predetermined time.” Without further explanation or evidence, the
Examiner does not support adequately the rejection.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 10. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 11, 15, and 16 that depend from
claim 10.

Rejections VI and VII
Claims 12–14 depend from independent claim 10. The Examiner
does not rely on Mueller or Geissenhoener to disclose anything that
Appeal 2018-009224
Application 15/176,315

7
remedies the above-discussed deficiency in claim 10’s rejection. Thus, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 12–14.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections of claims 1–20.

REVERSED