Ex Parte Abdul-Rasool et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201814119284 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/119,284 11/21/2013 2352 7590 08/30/2018 OSTROLENK FABER LLP 1180 A VENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NY 10036-8403 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mustafa Abdul-Rasool 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P/1228-408 (V28806) 1020 EXAMINER WILTEY, NICHOLAS K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 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): pat@ostrolenk.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MUSTAFA ABDUL-RASOOL, OSKAR JOHANSSON, and MIKAEL OGREN Appeal2018-007434 1 Application 14/119,2842 Technology Center 3600 Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13-19, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed April, 4, 2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 13, 2018), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 24, 2018), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 19, 2017). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "Scania CV AB of Sweden." Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-007434 Application 14/119,284 BACKGROUND According to Appellants, "the invention relates to a method and a system for running a vehicle in situations where a reduced power requirement for propulsion of said vehicle prevails." Spec. 1. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A method for running a vehicle having a combustion engine, a starter motor and a driveshaft to which the engine is selectively connected to deliver driving force to the driveshaft for propulsion of the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion, the method comprising: determining that the vehicle is approaching a downgrade within a period of time or within a specified distance; in response to the determination that the vehicle is approaching a downgrade, determining, based on look ahead data obtained for the vehicle, a look ahead data-based freewheel period of time, the look ahead data-based freewheel period of time being at least a period during which the vehicle is on the downgrade; determining whether the look ahead data-based freewheel period of time is at least as long as a predetermined first period of time such that an amount of fuel reduction when the engine is switched off for the entirety of the first period of time is at least a first predetermined amount of fuel consumed when the engine is started by the starter motor; and only when the determination is made that the look ahead data-based freewheel period of time is at least as long as the predetermined first period of time, disconnecting the engine from the driveshaft for the entirety of the look ahead data-based freewheel period, and switching off the engine for the entirety of the look ahead data-based freewheel period. Appeal Br. 10. 2 Appeal2018-007434 Application 14/119,284 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Steen3 in view of Seibertz4 and Ito. 5 2. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Steen in view of Seibertz, Ito, and Sahlen. 6 DISCUSSION As discussed below, we are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of the claims to the extent the Examiner has not established that the art discloses or otherwise makes obvious the determination of "a look ahead data-based freewheeling period of time" that is at least "a period during which the vehicle is on [ an approaching] downgrade." With respect to claim 1, for example, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Steen discloses a method including determining a vehicle is approaching a downgrade and "in response ... determining ... a look ahead data-based freewheel period of time" as claimed. Final Act. 3 (citing Steen ,r,r 14, 19, 31, 33). The Examiner further finds Steen fails to explicitly disclose however [ and] Seibertz teaches determining whether the look ahead data-based freewheel period of time is at least as long as a predetermined first period of time such that an amount of fuel reduction for vehicle operation when the engine is switched off for the entirety of the first period of time is at least a first predetermined amount of fuel consumed when the engine is started by the starter motor and when the determination is made that the look ahead data- 3 Steen et al., US 2006/0293824 Al, pub. Dec. 28, 2006. 4 Seibertz et al., US 2003/0087724 Al, pub. May 8, 2003. 5 Ito, US 2010/0305789 Al, pub. Dec. 2, 2010. 6 Sahlen et al., US 2009/0301061 Al, pub. Dec. 10, 2009. 3 Appeal2018-007434 Application 14/119,284 based freewheel period of time is at least as long as the predetermined first period of time, switching off the engine for the entirety of the first period (in paragraph [0006]). Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes with respect to the combination of Steen and Seibertz: It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the method of running a vehicle as disclosed by Steen with the determination as to whether the engine should be disconnected from the drive shaft as taught by Seibertz in order to reduce the amount of fuel consumption within a vehicle. Id. The Examiner also acknowledges that Steen does not disclose a starter motor, but the Examiner finds and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Steen to include a starter motor as taught by Ito. Id. (citing Ito ,r 104). Appellants argue, inter alia, that the art "is silent as to any kind of comparison of look-ahead database freewheeling period of time to a period of time during which the fuel reduction is equivalent to engine restart, as required by claim 1." Appeal Br. 4. We agree at least to the extent that the Examiner has not established that the art of record teaches or otherwise makes obvious a determination of "a look ahead data-based freewheel period of time" in response to a determination that a vehicle is approaching a downgrade, "[the] period of time being at least a period during which the vehicle is on the downgrade." See Reply Br. 3--4. In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Steen teaches determining "the look ahead data-based freewheel period of time." Final Act. 3 (citing Steen ,r,r 14, 19, 31, 33). In the cited paragraphs, Steen discloses a method in which "an identification is made of the fact that [a] downhill slope on which the vehicle is traveling will end within [the] near future." Steen ,r 14. 4 Appeal2018-007434 Application 14/119,284 Steen discloses that based on this identification, "the freewheel function is reactivated some time before the vehicle has fallen below the vehicle speed limit. The time is dependent, at least, on when the downhill slope is calculated to end." Id. Steen also discloses that the method may take account of future topography "in order [to better] be able to control the freewheel function." Id. at ,r 19. Steen further discloses that the time at which the freewheel function is reactivated may be calculated based on the current speed, "expected deceleration[,] and future topography." Id. at ,r 31. Steen discloses that this process may improve fuel economy. Id. at ,r 33. We see no indication in these portions of Steen that Steen discloses a determination of a "freewheel period of time" based on an approaching downgrade. Rather, Steen discloses only the calculation of a time at which freewheel function should be reactivated based on speed, deceleration, and future topography. In other words, in Steen, the reactivation time is for the current downgrade on which the vehicle is traveling. Thus, we agree with Appellants that Steen does not disclose determining that a vehicle is approaching a downgrade and determining a look ahead data-based freewheel period of time during which the vehicle is on the downgrade. Reply Br. 3--4. Steen is only concerned with determining when to reactive the freewheel function for a vehicle already on a downgrade. Thus, we also agree that with Appellants that Steen does not disclose a specific calculation of fuel consumption or fuel savings and Steen does not disclose switching the engine off at any point or any relationship between engine restart and fuel consumption. See Reply Br. 4--5. In the rejection, the Examiner indicates that Seibertz is relied upon to teach a comparison between the fuel reduction when the engine is switched off with the fuel cost of restarting the engine and determining to switch the 5 Appeal2018-007434 Application 14/119,284 engine off when the fuel reduction is greater than the fuel cost. Final Act. 4 ( citing Seibertz ,r 6). Seibertz discloses that there is a specific time period that an engine must be switched off, e.g., 20 seconds, that results in a fuel savings that exceeds the expenditure of fuel required to restart the engine. Seibertz ,r 6. Thus, Seibertz discloses a method that looks at previous data to determine when a car is in a stop-and-go situation versus a long standstill in order to determine when it is fuel efficient to tum the engine off. See id. at ,r,r 6, 8, 10, 11. We agree with Appellants that Seibertz does not disclose operating in a freewheel mode or measuring a time period during which a vehicle is projected to be on an approaching downgrade. See Reply Br. 6. Based on the disclosures relied upon in Steen and Seibertz, we fail to see how the combination of Steen and Seibertz would result in a method as claimed. In the rejection, the Examiner concludes [i]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the method of running a vehicle as disclosed by Steen with the determination as to whether the engine should be disconnected from the drive shaft as taught by Seibertz in order to reduce the amount of fuel consumption within a vehicle. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner does not explain how the combination would result in a determination of a freewheel period of time that is at least the amount of time that a vehicle will be on an approaching downgrade as claimed and a comparison between the freewheel period of time to a period of time during which an engine will be switched off in order to determine if turning off the engine during the freewheel period of time would be fuel efficient, as required by claim 1. In the Answer, the Examiner provides some further analysis, but fails to discuss these particular limitations adequately and seems to generally rely on a finding that optimizing fuel 6 Appeal2018-007434 Application 14/119,284 consumption is a matter of "common sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art." Ans. 5. Although optimizing the use of fuel may generally be a matter of common sense, the Examiner has not established adequately how this objective would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed method. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Each of the remaining claims subject to this rejection either recite limitations similar to those discussed above or depend from such claims, and thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-19, and 21. Rejection 2 With respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 9, the Examiner does not rely on the art of record in a manner that cures the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, as discussed above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 9. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3-11, 13-19, and 21. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation