Ex Parte CEDFORS et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2019

14889517 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/889,517 11/06/2015 DanCEDFORS
2352 7590 03/11/2019
OSTROLENK FABER LLP
845 THIRD A VENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10022
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.
P/1228-526 (V35278) 9505
EXAMINER
MO,XIAOEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2019 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):
pat@ostrolenk.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAN CEDFORS, KIM KYLSTROM,
PATRIK FOGELBERG, ANDERS JONSSON,
and CARINA FORSBERG 1
Appeal 2018-004853
Application 14/889 ,517
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-13, 19, and 20. App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we
find error in the Examiner's rejections of these claims. Accordingly, we
REVERSE the Examiner's rejections.
1 "The real party in interest in this appeal is the applicant, Scania CV AB."
App. Br. 1. We, thus, proceed on the basis that, for purposes of this appeal,
Scania CV AB is the "Appellant."
Appeal2018-004853
Application 14/889,517
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a method for control of a low-
pressure circuit in a fuel system of a vehicle." Spec. 1: 19--20. Method claim
1 and system claim 20 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A method for controlling a low-pressure circuit in a fuel
system of a vehicle, the vehicle including a combustion engine,
the method comprising:
operating the circuit for providing the engine with fuel, via
a pressure change system, from at least one fuel tank;
obtaining, by a controller comprising an automated data
processor, information about a section of road ahead of the
vehicle;
determining, by the controller, a future working point for
the engine based on the obtained information about the section
of road ahead of the vehicle; and
controlling automatically at least one controllable fuel
pump which forms part of the low-pressure circuit, based on the
future working point.
Sinz et al.
Lupo et al.
Einberger et al.
REFERENCES
US 6,276,342 Bl
US 2006/0150937 Al
US 2009/0025685 Al
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Aug. 21, 2001
July 13, 2006
Jan.29,2009
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l)
as anticipated by Lupo.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lupo
and Einberger.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Lupo and Sinz.
2
Appeal2018-004853
Application 14/889,517
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Lupo
Both independent claims 1 and 20 include limitations directed to a
controller that obtains "information about a section of road ahead of the
vehicle,"2 "a future working point," and operation of a fuel pump "based on
the future working point." Appellant's Specification states, "the section of
road ahead ... may for example comprise ... traffic information." Spec.
5: 18-22. The Examiner specifically references paragraphs 3, 4, 18, and 19
of Lupo as disclosing these limitations. Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 6, 7.
Lupo addresses a "stop-and start" mode for a vehicle having an
internal combustion engine and an electric starter motor. Lupo ,r,r 1, 2.
Paragraph 3 of Lupo addresses this "stop-and-start" mode stating that the
engine is "turned off when the vehicle is at rest or nearly stopped" and that
this operation occurs "typically for reasons associated with traffic, such as a
red traffic light or a junction." However, paragraph 3 also states that the
engine is "restarted as soon as the driver presses on the accelerator."
Paragraph 4 also addresses this operation, such as "when the motor vehicle
is being driven in urban traffic." Paragraphs 18 and 19 recite similar
language ( discussing "traffic," the driver pressing or releasing the
accelerator pedal, and an engine control unit that "controls an electric motor
(not shown in detail), which actuates a fuel pump").
Appellant contends, "Lupo is silent as to any kind of information
obtained by a controller ... regarding a section of road ahead of the
2 Claim 20 varies slightly reciting a determination unit that employs
"information obtained regarding a section of road ahead of the vehicle."
3
Appeal2018-004853
Application 14/889,517
vehicle." App. Br. 4 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellant because,
as succinctly stated by Appellant, "[ d]epressing the brake by the driver is not
'information' that is obtained by the controller of the vehicle, as required by
claim 1." App. Br. 5. In other words, "the braking is not information 'about
a section of road"' because in Lupo, "when a driver depresses the brake of
an automobile, the controller learns nothing about a section of road on the
outside of the vehicle." 3 App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2, 3.
Appellant also argues that "Lupo is silent as to determining a future
working point of the engine, as required by claim 1." App. Br. 6. "Lupo
fails to describe any relationship between information obtained for the road
ahead and a determination of the working point of the engine." App. Br. 6.
Again, in view of the express teachings of Lupo, we agree with Appellant
that "Lupo does not disclose or suggest that a 'future working point of the
engine' is determined" or that it is determined "based on the obtained
information about the section of road ahead of the vehicle." App. Br. 5; see
also Reply Br. 3.
Appellant further argues that Lupo lacks disclosure of controlling a
fuel pump "based on the future working point." App. Br. 6. Here, Appellant
references paragraph 23 of Lupo which states that the control unit decides
"to enable or disable the 'stop-and-start' mode as a function of' (a) the state
of charge of the battery; (b) the motion of the driveshaft; and, ( c) the electric
3 "The control system of the vehicle does not 'know' whether the driver
wishes to stop or to slow because he has reached his destination, feels that he
is driving too fast, wishes to text someone, or because of a road condition for
the vehicle." App. Br. 5. "In fact, in some cases, the driver may press the
brake pedal by accident or as a reflex to unexpected events, such as spilling
a drink, inside the vehicle." Reply Br. 2.
4
Appeal2018-004853
Application 14/889,517
power consumed by the vehicle. See App. Br. 6. Thus, according to
Appellant, "Lupo is also silent as to a fuel pump that is controlled 'based on
the future working point' that has been thus determined, as further required
by claim 1." App. Br. 7.
The Examiner responds stating the "controller knows the driver is
stopped due to traffic," (Ans. 6) but does not explain how the controller
knows this is the reason for being stopped, and not for some other reason
(see supra). The Examiner further states, "the ECU determines the vehicle
is approaching a red light," (Ans. 7) but it is the driver that receives
information about the road ahead; Lupo' s controller only responds to the
driver's actions (i.e., pressing the accelerator). The Examiner also finds "the
vehicle assumes the traffic has cleared or the light is green" when the
accelerator is depressed (Ans. 7) and also that "the controller assumes there
is no more traffic" (Ans. 8). 4 However, there is no disclosure that Lupo's
controller "assumes" anything; instead, Lupo' s controller simply reacts to
the driver's physical commands. See supra.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner has
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Lupo anticipates claims
1-5, 7-9, 19, and 20. We reverse the rejection of these claims.
The rejection of (a) claim 6 as unpatentable over Lupo and Einberger; and,
(b) claims 10-13 as unpatentable over Lupo and Sinz
The Examiner does not rely on either Einberger or Sinz in a manner
that might cure the above defect of Lupo. Einberger is relied on to teach
regeneration of a particle filter (Final Act. 5) and Sinz for teaching
4 "After the driver depresses the brakes, the controller will determine that the
driver wants to stop the vehicle due to traffic." Ans. 8.
5
Appeal2018-004853
Application 14/889,517
transferring fuel from a main tank to a buffer tank (Final Act. 6). Hence, for
the same reasons expressed above, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 6 and 10-13 as unpatentable over the combination of Lupo with
Einberger or Sinz.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13, 19, and 20 are reversed.
REVERSED
6