Ex Parte Baeuerle

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 2006

09976788 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2006)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETER BAEUERLE
____________

Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788
Technology Center 3600
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before OWENS, CRAWFORD and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's rejection of claims 1-30.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788

2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method and control device for
operating a torque-converter lockup clutch. In accordance with appellant’s
invention, the slip of the torque converter is adjusted to a setpoint value while the
lockup clutch is being closed, the set point value being continuously selected inside
a closing interval as a function of time and taking into account the input torque
being applied to the torque converter. A copy of the claims under appeal is set
forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Cowan 5,029,087 Jul. 2, 1991

Claims 1-30 all stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Cowan.
Rather than reiterate in their entirety the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed June 15, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection and to the appellant's brief (filed March 24, 2005) and
reply brief (filed August 18, 2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.

OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Cowan patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. After full
Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788

3

consideration of all of the evidence and arguments before us, we conclude that the
rejection should be sustained.
The appellant has not presented any separate argument for the patentability
of claims 2-30 apart from claim 1. Thus, in accordance with 37 CFR §
41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have selected claim 1 as the representative claim to decide the
appeal on this rejection, with claims 2-30 standing or falling with claim 1. See In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
Cowan discloses an electronic control system for controlling a torque
converter lockup clutch, wherein an electronically controlled valve system is used
to modulate the pressure in the control pressure cavity of the lockup clutch to
thereby vary the clutch capacity to establish a controlled degree of slip of the
clutch so that the actual slip of the clutch may be maintained at a target slip value
that is adjusted depending upon the value of input shaft speed data and throttle
control position data stored in the memory of a microprocessor. The
microprocessor is designed to calibrate a desired slip value for each engine torque
and turbine speed condition whereby a closed-loop electronic control is achieved to
provide a partial converter bypass during a major portion of the vehicle operating
time. See abstract.
When the torque converter approaches a hydrokinetic coupling point as the
vehicle is operating under a steady state cruising condition, a continuous slip
occurs in the converter by reason of the hydrokinetic action of the turbine and the
Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788

4

impeller. The converter thus contributes to smooth torque transfer from the engine
to the traction wheels (col. 1, ll. 19-25).
Cowan’s controller reduces slip error using a calculation that takes into
account the desired slip less a computed actual slip. The slip error is determined to
be the difference between a desired slip and the measured slip. The difference in
the present error and the error that occurred during a previous background control
loop of the controller is determined and that value is used with a corresponding
value of the present control loop to get a rate of change in the error. A duty cycle
is then computed as a result of that computation so that the bypass clutch control
valve, which is sensitive to changes in duty cycle, will produce a controlled decay
of slip with respect to time. See col. 3, ll. 5-40. The converter slip is measured
using engine RPM and torque converter output shaft speed sensors and that value
is subtracted from the desired slip to obtain the slip error (col. 3, ll. 60-63). The
desired slip depends on information from the throttle position sensor, an engine
speed sensor, a gear shift selector sensor, oil temperature sensor and transition
input shaft speed sensor such that the bypass clutch capacity is adjusted to a value
that is necessary to achieve the desired slip at any given torque. Torque transients
caused by engine operating variables, transmission ratio shifting or throttle
movements are then absorbed by momentary periods of increased slip as the
bypass clutch solenoid output signal is adjusted during each background control
loop of the processor in accordance with the new torque conditions (col. 3, l. 67, to
col. 4, l. 11).
Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788

5

Cowan’s control system operates as follows: An electronic processor 70
receives input signals from various sensors that measure engine and vehicle
operating conditions. The output of the microprocessor is transferred to solenoid
64. The solenoid valve controlled by solenoid 64 is calibrated to receive the
control pressure of the solenoid output to establish a pressure that will determine
the controlled slip of the clutch (col. 6, ll. 33-48).
One of the input signals to the processor 70 is a throttle position signal
received by a position sensor 74. Additionally, an engine speed sensor 76 in the
form of a profile and ignition pickup (PIP) delivers an engine speed signal to the
processor 70.
It is quite apparent from the above that Cowan’s control system adjusts the
slip of the torque converter using a setpoint or desired slip, which depends upon
information from, inter alia, an engine speed sensor (engine RPM) whereby the
bypass clutch capacity is adjusted to a value that is necessary to achieve the desired
slip “at any given torque” (col. 4, ll. 4-5). Furthermore, the solenoid output signal
is adjusted during each background control loop of the processor in accordance
with the new torque condition and the desired slip is determined by the actual slip
and the final target slip value, causing an exponential decay in the slip as the final
target slip is approached. In other words, Cowan’s control system adjusts the slip
of the torque converter by calculating a desired slip, which is continuously adjusted
during each control loop of the processor to cause an exponential decay in the slip
Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788

6

as the target slip is approached (i.e., as a function of time), the desired slip being
calculated based in part on the measured engine speed.
The examiner’s position in rejecting the claims on appeal is that, while
Cowan does not disclose direct measurement of input or engine torque, the engine
speed or RPM, which is measured and used as an input in calculating the desired
slip, is indicative of torque and the desired slip value is thus selected taking into
account the input torque. The examiner also contends that the language “taking
into account” is much broader than appellant’s arguments imply and does not
require that the setpoint be calculated using a measured value of input torque
(answer, p. 3).
The appellant argues that Cowan does not disclose, or even suggest, that its
system takes into account input torque currently applied to a torque converter in
making the error adjustment and points out that Cowan allows rapid torque
changes to be absorbed by short periods of increased or decreased slip without
being felt by the driver (brief, p. 5). Additionally, the appellant contends that the
examiner’s broad interpretation of “taking into account” and assertion that engine
speed is an indicator of engine output torque and is directly related to engine
output torque must be drawing on facts within the personal knowledge of the
examiner, since no support was provided for these allegedly conclusory assertions
(reply brief, p. 2).
First, we agree with the examiner that the claim language “taking into
account” does not require that the setpoint value be calculated using a measured
Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788

7

value of input torque. Second, we find that one of ordinary skill in the field of
appellant’s invention would have been familiar with at least basic concepts of
mechanical engineering and engine design and we take notice of the notoriously
well known and basic mechanical engineering concept that every engine has a
characteristic speed-torque curve, as illustrated by Marks’ Mechanical Engineers’
Handbook, Eighth Edition, p. 9-87, Fig. 11 (McGraw-Hill 1978) (copy attached
hereto). We thus find that the examiner’s position that the engine speed or RPM
measured by Cowan and used in calculating the desired slip is indicative of engine
torque applied as input to the torque converter is well taken. Further, Cowan’s
discussion of allowing torque transients, or rapid increases or decreases in torque,
merely describes the type of torque transients inherent in a closed-loop control
system and is in no way an indication that torque is disregarded in Cowan’s
system. Finally, on the basis of the above findings, we conclude that Cowan’s
electronic control system, which calculates desired slip using a signal generated by
the measurement of engine speed, selects the setpoint or desired slip value “taking
into account the input torque” currently applied to the torque converter.
In light of the above, we shall sustain the rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Cowan. We shall also sustain the like rejection of claims 2-30,
which stand or fall with representative claim 1, as discussed above.

CONCLUSION
Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788

8

To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-30 is
AFFIRMED.
Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788

9

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-1094
Application No. 09/976,788

10

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004