Johannes Foufas et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 8, 2020

14781633 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 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.
14/781,633 10/01/2015 Johannes FOUFAS 000009-868 1087
51707 7590 07/08/2020
WRB-IP LLP
801 N. Pitt Street
Suite 123
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
WERNER, ROBERT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2020 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):
HARRY@WRB-IP.COM
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHANNES FOUFAS and DAN STENQUIST

Appeal 2019-002350
Application 14/781,633
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER,

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. We REVERSE.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “the
inventor or all of the joint inventors”). “The real party in interest is the
assignee, Volvo Truck Corporation.” (Appeal Br. 1.)
2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). A hearing was
held on May 28, 2020.
Appeal 2019-002350
Application 14/781,633

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention “relates to a control system for controlling
an internal combustion engine” (Spec. ¶ 1) comprising two controllers
having different “response time[s]” (id. ¶ 8). According to the Appellant,
the controllers’ different response times afford a “low risk” of “an oscillating
condition” when controlling exhaust gas recirculation through the engine.
(Appeal Br. 7.)
Independent Claims on Appeal
1. A control system for controlling an internal combustion
engine, the internal combustion engine comprising a
turbocharging unit and an exhaust gas recirculation assembly,
the control system being configured to issue a boost pressure
control signal, the control system comprising a boost pressure
controller configured to determine the boost pressure control
signal, the boost pressure controller having a first response
time, wherein the control system is configured to issue an
exhaust gas recirculation control signal for controlling an
amount of recirculated exhaust gas via the exhaust gas
recirculation assembly, the control system comprising an
exhaust gas recirculation controller configured to determine the
exhaust gas recirculation control signal independently of the
boost pressure control signal, the exhaust gas recirculation
controller having a second response time, wherein the first
response time differs from the second response time.

20. A method for controlling an internal combustion engine
comprising a turbocharging unit and an exhaust gas
recirculation assembly, the method comprising:
- issuing a boost pressure control signal using a boost
pressures controller having a first response time; and
- issuing an exhaust gas recirculation control signal using
an exhaust gas recirculation controller having a second response
time wherein the first response time differs from the second
response time.

Appeal 2019-002350
Application 14/781,633

3
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 11–13, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Oota.3 (Final Act. 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Oota. (Final Act. 5.)
The Examiner rejects claims 4–10, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Oota and Hu.4 (Final Act. 7.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 20 require a first controller (“a boost
pressure controller”), a first control signal (“a boost pressure control
signal”), and “a first response time.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Claims 1
and 20 also require a second controller (“an exhaust gas recirculation
controller”), a second control signal (“an exhaust gas recirculation control
signal”), and “a second response time.” (Id.)
The Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections all rely upon
Oota to disclose the two controllers, the two control signals, and the two
response times recited in independent claims 1 and 20. (See Final Act. 2–3,
5, 7.) The Appellant argues that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown
that Oota discloses the second response time required by claims 1 and 20.
(See Appeal Br. 9.) We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument.
Independent claim 1 requires the first controller to be configured to
“determine” the first control signal and requires the second controller to be
configured to “determine” the second control signal. (Appeal Br., Claims

3 Oota et al., US 6,701,244 B2, issued March 2, 2004. Our quotations to this
patent will omit the bolding of numerals used as labeling in the drawings.
4 Hu et al., US 9,212,629 B2, issued December 15, 2015.
Appeal 2019-002350
Application 14/781,633

4
App.) Independent claim 20 requires the steps of “issuing” the first control
signal using the first controller and “issuing” the second control signal using
the second controller. (Id.)
Ooto discloses an engine system in which an actuator associated with
turbocharging pressure (hereinafter a ‘TCP actuator’) and a valve associated
with exhaust gas recirculation (hereinafter an ‘EGR valve’) “are controlled
by signals which are supplied from a programmable controller 20.” (Ooto
5:31–33; see also id. 4:60–65, 5:64–65.) The Examiner considers a control
signal that controls the TCP actuator to be the first control signal recited in
the claims. (See Final Act. 3, citing Ooto 5:61–67.) And the Examiner
considers a control signal that controls the EGR valve to be the second
control signal recited in the claims. (See id., citing Ooto 5:11–13.)
Thus, according to the Examiner, Oota’s controller 20 includes a first
controller that determines a first control signal and issues this first control
signal to the TCP actuator (i.e., the TCP actuator’s controller) and a second
controller that determines a second control signal and issues this second
control signal to the EGR valve (i.e., the ERG valve’s controller).
Independent claims 1 and 20 further require the first controller to
“hav[e]” the first response time and require the second controller to “hav[e]”
the second response time. (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Ooto discloses equations in which “GAIN1” and “GAIN2” are
designated as constants that “depend upon the structure of the hardware.”
(Ooto 22:24–26.) The Examiner finds that GAIN1 relates to the first
response time recited in the claims (see Final Act. 3, citing Otto 22:12–15);
and the Examiner finds that GAIN2 relates to the second response time
recited in the claims (see id. at 3, citing Otto 22:15–20).
Appeal 2019-002350
Application 14/781,633

5
As indicated above, the Examiner considers the TCP actuator’s
controller to be Oota’s first controller and considers the ERG valve’s
controller to be Oota’s second controller. (See Final Act. 2–3.) As also
indicated above, independent claims 1 and 20 require the first controller to
have the first response time and require the second controller to have the
second response time. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Thus, according to the
Examiner, Oota discloses that the TCP actuator’s controller has a first
response time related to GAIN1; and that the EGR valve’s controller has a
second response time related to GAIN2.
In short, the Examiner’s rejections all rely upon Ooto to disclose that
the EGR valve’s controller has a response time related to GAIN2.
The Appellant contends that Ooto “does not at all present GAIN2 as a
time that in any way can be related to the actuation of the EGR valve.”
(Appeal Br. 9.) To support this contention, the Appellant cites to Ooto’s
disclosure defining how its response lags are measured. (See id.) The cited
disclosure sets forth that GAIN1 represents a response lag from “the instant
the [TCP actuator] is actuated” to the time an engine condition varies, and
that GAIN2 represents a response lag from “the instant the [TCP actuator] is
actuated” to the time another engine condition varies. (Ooto 22:12–20.)
Thus, as correctly contended by the Appellant, Ooto discloses that
GAIN2 corresponds to a response lag time that begins when the TCP
actuator (not the EGR valve) is actuated. This implies, if anything, that
GAIN2 relates to a response lag of Ooto’s first controller (the TCP
actuator’s controller), not Ooto’s second controller (the EGR valve’s
controller). In any event, the Examiner fails to adequately address where or
why Ooto discloses that its second controller, namely the EGR valve’s
Appeal 2019-002350
Application 14/781,633

6
controller, has a response lag (which the Examiner equates to the claimed
second response time) related to GAIN2.
As indicated above, the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections all rely upon Oota to disclose the second response time recited in
independent claims 1 and 20. And we agree with the Appellant that the
Examiner has not, on the record before us, sufficiently shown that Ooto
does so.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 11–13,
16–20
102(a)(2) Ooto

1, 11–13,
16–20
2, 3 103 Ooto 2, 3
4–10, 14, 15 103 Ooto, Hu 4–10, 14,
15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED