Ex Parte Badreddine et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

12577911 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/577,911 10/13/2009
28395 7590 05/25/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bader M. Badreddine
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.
81180123 5269
EXAMINER
SWENSON, BRIAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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 BADER M. BADREDDINE and
MING LANG KUANG
Appeal2014-003395
Application 12/577,911
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bader M. Badreddine and Ming Lang Kuang (Appellants)1 appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims
1-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meyer (US 7,448,458
B2, iss. Nov. 11, 2008) and Nakashima (US 2001/0020789 Al, pub. Sept.
13, 2001). Final Act. 2--4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003395
Application 12/577,911
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 6 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1. An automotive vehicle comprising:
a driveshaft;
an electric machine configured to generate and consume
electrical power, wherein the electric machine includes a rotor
connected with the driveshaft; and
a controller programmed to assign a sign to driver wheel
torque commands according to a direction of rotation of the
rotor based on (i) a torque command to the electric machine
and (ii) the electrical power generated or consumed by the
electric machine.
OPINION
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that the combination of Meyer and
Nakashima teaches controller 20 programmed to assign a sign to driver
wheel torque commands according to a direction of rotation of the rotor
based on (1) a torque command to the electric machine; and (2) the electrical
power generated or consumed by electric machine 14 or 14'. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner's rejection is premised on a finding that
due to the design and operation of Meyer[,] it is inherent that both
the torque command and the flow of electricity are indicators of
the direction of rotation of the rotor, and[,] as such[,] an operator
of ordinary skill in the art would be able to manually know the
direction of rotation based off of this knowledge available in
Meyer.
Id. at 5. The Examiner elaborates that
[ s ]imply providing an assignment of a sign to [this] known
direction[ of rotation], which one of ordinary skill operating the
invention would be manually be capable of based off of this
information [i.e., the direction of travel of the torque command
(reverse or forward) and a determination whether the flow of
2
Appeal2014-003395
Application 12/577,911
electricity is to or from the motor/generator] . . . , is not
patentable, it is merely automating something that could
previously have been done manually, by observing the rotation
of the output shaft/ gears of the motor and with a volt meter to
determine the flow of electricity.
Id. at 3.
Appellants argue that just because information can be used to
determine the direction of rotor rotation does not mean that it is obvious to
do so. App. Br. 3. That is, even assuming it is possible to determine the
direction of the rotor by the torque command to the electric machine and the
electrical power generated or consumed by the electric machine "due to the
mechanical linking of the carrier and rotor in the drivetrain assembly,"
Appellants argue the Examiner has not explained why it would be obvious.
Reply Br. 3 (quoting Ans. 4).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's finding that torque
command and the flow of electricity inherently are indicators of the direction
of rotation of the rotor (Final Act. 5) is not sufficient to support a conclusion
of the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. As an initial matter, we
agree with the Examiner that information relating to (i) the torque command
to the electric machine and (ii) the electrical power generated or consumed
by the electric machine indicate the direction of rotation of the rotor of the
electric machine. We, however, are not persuaded that this finding
establishes that Meyer, as modified by Nakashima, renders obvious a
controller programmed to assign a sign to driver wheel torque commands
according to any such indicated direction of rotation. That is, although the
Examiner has provided evidence that Meyer's controller may be capable of
assigning a sign to driver wheel torque commands according to a direction
of rotation of the rotor indicated by (i) a torque command to the electric
3
Appeal2014-003395
Application 12/577,911
machine and (ii) the electrical power generated or consumed by the electric
machine, the Examiner has not shown that Meyer's controller has the
necessary constituents, that is, programming, to function as claimed. When
functional language is associated with programming or some other structure
required to perform the function, that programming or structure must be
present in order to meet the claim limitation. See Typhoon Touch Techs.,
Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing
Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
In addition to finding that torque command and electricity flow
inherently are indicators of the direction of rotation of the rotor (Final Act.
5), the Examiner also finds that any controller controlling a motor inherently
is programmed to assign a sign. Ans. 2; see also id. at 3 ("It is[,] therefore[,]
[t]he Office's position that a sign is inherent to any and all torque commands
assigned [or] issued to a motor from a controller."). The Examiner further
explains that "[t]h[e] limitation [relating to a controller programmed to
assign a sign] is inherently provided by any controller controlling a motor,
such as taught by Meyer" because "[a ]ll motors that rotate about a shaft to
provide torque to a drivetrain can only function in three modes"-zero
torque command applied to a drivetrain in a first mode, a positive torque
command applied to a drivetrain in a second mode, and a negative torque
command applied to a drivetrain in a third mode. Id. at 2-3 (emphasis
omitted). With specific reference to Meyer, the Examiner states that:
when . . . a torque command is issued from the controller (20
taught by Meyer) this value is assigned a sign (a positive,
negative, or zero torque value). Meyer, further teaches (Col. 6,
lines 30-34, for example), that this sign is based on (i) a torque
4
Appeal2014-003395
Application 12/577,911
command (for example: "to operate the vehicle 10 in reverse"
lines 3 0-31) to the electric machine ("the operating mode of the
electric motor 14 is converted or switched in a known manner"
lines 33-34) and (ii) the electrical power generated or consumed
by the electric machine ("the operating mode of main generator
30 is converted or switched in a known manner" lines 31-32).
Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that to establish inherency, the evidence must make
clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the
reference, and that "[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a
given set of circumstances is not sufficient." App. Br. 3 (quoting MPEP
§ 2112). Appellants argue that "[a]lthough torque commands to an electric
machine (such as a motor) may indeed inherently include a sign, this does
not disclose assigning a sign to driver wheel torque commands." Reply Br.
2. We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner has provided technical reasoning to reasonably support
that a controller programmed to assign a sign to torque commands issued
from the controller to the electric machine is necessarily present in the
teachings of Meyer. The Examiner, however, has not provided technical
reasoning to support that a controller programmed to assign a sign to driver
wheel torque commands according to a direction of rotation of the rotor
(based at least in part on the torque commands to the electric machine), is
necessarily present in the teachings of Meyer. Accordingly, the Examiner
has not established that a controller with specific programming to assign a
sign to driver wheel torque commands is inherently disclosed by Meyer, nor
has the Examiner provided a reason with rational underpinnings as to why it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for
such programming in Meyer's controller.
5
Appeal2014-003395
Application 12/577,911
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6