Ex Parte Brigham

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2017

12235003 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/235,003 09/22/2008 David Richens Brigham 81152504 5233
28395 7590 07/27/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2017 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 DAVID RICHENS BRIGHAM
Appeal 2015-000241
Application 12/235,0031
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—4, 8, 9, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Ford Motor Company as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-000241
Application 12/235,003
BACKGROUND
The claims are directed to a method for controlling a micro-hybrid
electric vehicle with an automatic transmission. Spec. 1:1—11. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
controlling a vehicle powertrain having an engine and a
starter-generator using at least a microprocessor-based
controller configured for stopping the engine when a
brake is applied and brake pedal travel has exceeded a
threshold value while the vehicle is moving and vehicle
speed is less than a calibrated threshold value,
shifting a transmission into neutral when the engine stops,
and
starting the engine using the starter-generator and shifting
the transmission into gear in response to releasing the
brake.
REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written-description requirement. Final
Act. 2.2
2. Claims 1—4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Katou (US 2004/0055800 Al, pub.
Mar. 25, 2004), Hopper (US 6,926,639 B2, iss. Aug. 9, 2005), and
Hegr (GB 2413999 A, pub. Nov. 16, 2005). Final Act. 2—3.3
2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection as applied to claims 1—3. Ans. 2.
3 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 2 and 9 under § 103 based
on Katou and Hopper. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-000241
Application 12/235,003
DISCUSSION
Written Description
The Examiner finds that the Specification does not support a claim to
“using the starter-generator in response to a signal from the controller when
the powertrain temperature exceeds an associated threshold.” Final
Act. 2. Appellant argues that the Specification “repeatedly refers to use of
the starter-generator when the vehicle or engine is warm, i.e. temperature
above a predetermined value, in contrast to a cold start where an auxiliary
starter motor may be used.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec. 3:21—24, 3:29-32,
4:1,4:14—16, 7:32—8:2). Appellant also points out that claim 7, as originally
filed, stated “using the electric machine as an engine starting torque source
when the powertrain temperature is above a predetermined value.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellant that the Specification,
including original claim 7, supports the language of claim 4.4 Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection based on § 112.
Obviousness
Appellant treats claims 1—4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 as a group. Appeal
Br. 5—8. We select claim 1 as representative; the other claims of the group
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Katou substantially teaches the limitations of
claim 1 but does not teach “stopping the engine while the vehicle is moving
and vehicle speed is less than a calibrated threshold value” (Final Act. 3) and
4 To the extent the Examiner takes the position that the written description
must have an actual exemplary value in order to demonstrate possession of
a “predetermined value” (see Ans. 3), we do not agree. As Appellant has
identified, the Specification discloses the step of using the starter-generator
only when above a certain temperature.
3
Appeal 2015-000241
Application 12/235,003
does not teach “shifting a transmission into neutral when the engine stops”
(id. at 4). The Examiner finds that Hegr teaches “stopping an engine when
the vehicle is moving and vehicle speed is less than a threshold value.” Id.
at 3 (citing Hegr, 24:22—25:8). The Examiner finds that Hopper teaches
shifting a transmission into neutral when the engine stops and back into gear
when the brake is released. Id. at 4 (citing Hopper, 2:1—25, 4:12—22). The
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
incorporate the teachings of Hegr and Hopper into those of Katou for “the
purpose of improving fuel economy and of improving the driving experience
of the vehicle operator.” Id. at 3, 4.
Appellant argues that “Katou teaches stopping the engine only after
the vehicle is stopped” and that, because of this, “Katou teaches away from
Applicant’s disclosure and reliance on Katou for stopping the vehicle when a
brake pedal is applied while the vehicle is moving is improper.” Appeal
Br. 6. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s use of Hegr as teaching
“stopping an engine when the vehicle is moving and vehicle speed is less
than a threshold value” cannot be combined with the Katou’s teachings.
Id. at 7. We do not agree.
Katou teaches stopping an engine when a number of conditions are
met, one of which is that “vehicle speed=0 km/h.” Katou 133—38. Thus,
Katou recognizes that vehicle speed is a variable to be considered when
determining when to stop the engine, and Appellant has not identified a
teaching in Katou that would discourage a skilled artisan from stopping the
engine before the vehicle is stopped. The mere fact that Katou teaches a
value of zero for vehicle speed would not, in itself, discourage a skilled
4
Appeal 2015-000241
Application 12/235,003
artisan from looking to Hegr’s teachings. Thus, Appellant’s argument does
not apprise us of error.
Appellant next argues that Hopper teaches away from shifting the
transmission to neutral when stopping the engine. Appeal Br. 7. According
to Appellant, “Hopper distinguishes between ‘neutral-idle’ control
algorithms and shifting the transmission into neutral and teaches away from
shifting the transmission into neutral in favor of a modified neutral-idle
control that maintains pressure supplied to a clutch (engagement element).”
Id.', accord Reply Br. 3. The argument is not persuasive. The Specification
explains that “[t]he transmission may be configured for a neutral state by
disengaging a forward drive clutch in usual fashion.” Spec. 5:12—14. Thus,
“shifting a transmission into neutral” as claimed requires no more than
disengaging forward drive. Hopper distinguishes between prior methods of
shifting into neutral by “releasing pressure (P) against the engagement
device” (Hopper, 1:45—46) and the improved method taught by Hopper,
“reducing the pressure applied by the actuator to the engagement element to
a neutral idle pressure” {id. at 2:12—14). Both the prior-art method and
Hopper’s improved method effectively “disengage the torque transfer
between the engine and the wheels when the vehicle comes to a stop” {id. at
1:55—57) and, therefore, both methods teach “shifting the transmission into
neutral.” The improvement captured in Hopper’s method comes from
reducing the actuator pressure only to the point of disengaging torque
transfer, thus avoiding delay associated with reducing the pressure to zero.
E.g., id. at 3:64-4:7, 5:64—6:7. Thus, we do not agree with Appellant that
Hopper fails to teach shifting a transmission into neutral when the engine
stops.
5
Appeal 2015-000241
Application 12/235,003
Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over Katou, Hopper, and Hegr. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1—4, 8, 9, 13, and 14.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 8, 9,
13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6