Ex Parte Albertson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 201311514673 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WILLIAM C. ALBERTSON, DAVID R. STALEY, MIKE M. McDONALD, and BRYAN K. PRYOR ____________________ Appeal 2011-012522 Application 11/514,673 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012522 Application 11/514,673 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-17.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The rejected claims are directed to an engine oil change detection control system, which the Specification describes as capable of determining whether the engine oil was changed while the engine was shut down by comparing solenoid movement at shutdown with solenoid movement after the engine is restarted (Spec., paras. [0038] and [0039]). Claims 1 and 10 are the only independent claims. EXEMPLARY CLAIM Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claims on appeal. 1. An engine oil change detection control system, comprising: an armature position module that monitors a solenoid armature position based on a position signal; a solenoid control module that selectively generates a solenoid control signal and estimates a delay time based on the solenoid control signal and the solenoid armature position; and an engine oil change detection module that detects an engine oil change event based on the delay time. 1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed September 1, 2006), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 11, 2011), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 5, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 9, 2011). Appeal 2011-012522 Application 11/514,673 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects the claims as follows2: Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure that is not enabling; claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wolf (US 2005/0022784 A1, pub. Feb. 3, 2005); claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wolf in view of Wollschlager (US 5,442,671, iss. Aug. 15, 1995); claims 10, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wolf in view of Gruber (US 3,656,140, iss. Apr. 11, 1972); and claims 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wolf in view of Gruber and Dixon (US 5,853,068, iss. Dec. 29, 1998). ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection The Examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure that is not enabling. Specifically, the Examiner states Claims 1 and 10 cite that “the solenoid module that selectively generates a solenoid signal and estimates a delay time based on the solenoid control signal and the solenoid armature position; and an engine oil change detection module that detects an engine oil change event based on the 2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, which was made in the Office Action mailed December 13, 2010 (Ans. 4). Appeal 2011-012522 Application 11/514,673 4 delay time.” The estimation and how it is calculated is not discussed in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the specification, and if or how the estimation is compared with the actual signal (Ans. 5). In response, Appellants explain that the claimed “estimate[d] . . . delay time” is the delay time that is calculated as set forth in paragraphs [0031] – [0035] of the Specification, and thus the Examiner errs in requesting information regarding how the estimated time differs from the calculated time (Reply Br. 8-9). For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Anticipation Rejection The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as anticipated by Wolf (Ans. 5-6). We agree with Appellants’ arguments that Wolf does not teach the limitation “a solenoid control module that selectively generates a solenoid control signal and estimates a delay time based on the solenoid control signal and the solenoid armature position” (Reply Br. 5-7). The Examiner has not sufficiently established that controller 20 of Wolf generates a solenoid control signal and then estimates a delay time based on the control signal and a solenoid armature position. Although the Examiner points to paragraphs [0018] and [0019] as well as Figures 1-3 and 5, none of these portions of Wolf appears to teach the claimed delay time. For example, although Wolf teaches a “delay counter at block 62,” this is a predetermined delay that ensures the system achieves a particular configuration before making a determination of whether there is “low oil,” and thus differs from the claimed “delay time” (Wolf, para. [0019]). Wolf also teaches “a start timer at block 64,” however this is a predetermined time period during which the system evaluates whether a “low oil” condition Appeal 2011-012522 Application 11/514,673 5 exists, and thus its basis also differs from the claimed basis for the “delay time” (Wolf, para. [0019]). None of these or other portions of Wolf identified by the Examiner teach a delay time that is determined based on comparison of a solenoid control signal and a solenoid armature position, however. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-6 and 9, as these claims depend from independent claim 1. Obviousness rejections The Examiner rejects independent claim 10, which includes similar limitations as independent claim 1, for similar reasons as claim 1. Inasmuch as we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 7, 8, 11, and 13-17, because these claims depend from independent claims 1 and 10. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-17 is REVERSED. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation