Ex Parte Brennan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2014

12013699 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL G. BRENNAN, LEONARD G. WOZNIAK,
ROBERT C. SIMON JR., JEFFREY M. KAISER, EMIL RITZEN,
MATS A. REIMARK, RICHARD M. BACKMAN,
MAGNUS WALL, and THOMAS MAGNUSSON
____________

Appeal 2012-003580
Application 12/013,699
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daniel G. Brennan et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 17-30, which are all
the pending claims. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-003580
Application 12/013,699

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to creation and use of torque
curves in a hybrid vehicle, where the torque curves are based on engine
conditions. See, e.g., Spec., paras. [0010]-[0019]. Claims 1 and 17 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A torque estimation system for a vehicle, comprising:
an operating parameter module that determines an
estimated engine operating parameter based on engine speed;
a torque estimation module that estimates engine torque
based on said engine speed and said estimated engine operating
parameter;
an estimation control module that provides a plurality of
engine speeds to said operating parameter module and said
torque estimation module to determine estimated engine torque
as a function of engine speed; and
a hybrid control module that controls an electric motor of
said vehicle based upon said estimated engine torque.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Rollinger US 2007/0125083 A1 Jun. 7, 2007

REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1-15 and 17-
30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rollinger.

Appeal 2012-003580
Application 12/013,699

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 17
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 17 together. See App. Br.
10-12. We thus select claim 1 as the representative claim to decide the
appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claim 17 standing or falling with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found that Rollinger discloses all of the limitations as
recited in independent claim 1. Ans. 4-5, 8, 11-13.
Appellants argue that Rollinger does not disclose engine torque
estimation as claimed. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded
by Appellants’ argument because, as found by the Examiner, Rollinger
discloses a computer that computes (i.e., estimates) engine torque based on
engine speed and an estimated engine operating parameter, as recited in the
claims. Ans. 12 (citing Rollinger, figs. 1-3; paras. [0035], 0038], [0050]).
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants “do[] not
provide a particular method of estimation” within the recitations of the
claims. Ans. 13. We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that
“estimation as known in the art refers to mathematical computations and
using of look up tables. The prior art shows mathematical computations of
engine torque as claimed. The prior art further disclose[s] computations
referring to [a] look up table. These are all estimations.” Id. Accordingly,
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Appellants also argue that the estimated engine torque of Rollinger is
used for a different benefit (e.g., to compensate for turbo lag in a hybrid
vehicle) than Appellants’ use of the estimated engine torque (e.g., to control
an electric motor in a hybrid vehicle). App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5-6. We are
Appeal 2012-003580
Application 12/013,699

4
not persuaded by this argument either. In relevant part, the claim only
require engine torque estimation, as discussed supra, and control of an
electric motor based upon the engine torque estimation, which the Examiner
correctly found is disclosed in Rollinger. Ans. 13 (citing Rollinger, paras.
[0005], [0006], [0008], [0028]). As stated by our reviewing court in In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), “the name of the game is
the claim.” It is well established that asserted benefits or limitations not
appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim
1, and claim 17 falling with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Rollinger.

Claims 2-15 and 18-30
With respect to the rejection of claims 2-15 and 18-30, Appellants
have not set forth any other substantive arguments separate from the
arguments discussed supra. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6. Accordingly, for the
same reasons, we likewise sustain the rejection of claims 2-15 and 18-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rollinger.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 17-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rollinger.

Appeal 2012-003580
Application 12/013,699

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh