Ex parte Cheng et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 26, 2000

08852829 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 26, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JIE CHENG et al.
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0866
Application No. 08/852,829
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, STAAB and
NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15 and 16, which are all
of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 2
Application No. 08/852,829
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 3
Application No. 08/852,829
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to virtual vehicle
sensors which use neural networks trained using a simulation
model to monitor a vehicle parameter (specification, p. 1). A
copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix
to the appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Keeler et al. 5,548,528 Aug. 20,
1996
(Keeler) (filed Jan. 30,
1995)
Puskorius et al. 5,625,750 Apr. 29,
1997
(Puskorius '750) (filed June 29,
1994)
Puskorius et al. 5,781,700 July 14,
1998
(Puskorius '700) (filed Feb. 5,
1996)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Puskorius '700 in
view of Puskorius '750.
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 4
Application No. 08/852,829
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Puskorius '700 in
view of Keeler.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 10,
mailed July 1, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9,
filed June 7, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed
September 7, 1999) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 5
Application No. 08/852,829
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
9, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 5, 8 and 9
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 6 and 8; reply brief, p.
2) that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. Specifically, the appellants assert that the
use of residual mass fraction in controlling a vehicle
component is not disclosed in or suggested by the applied
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 6
Application No. 08/852,829
We understand the phrase "second operating parameter"1
used in claim 5 as referring to the previously recited
"residual mass fraction." In that regard, we note the
appellants' amendment filed November 23, 1998 (Paper No. 6)
wherein claim 5 was amended to change "second operating
parameter" to "residual mass fraction" in two places.
prior art. The examiner did not respond to this argument in
the answer.
Independent claim 5 reads as follows:
A method for controlling a vehicle component using a
plurality of physical sensors for sensing first operating
parameters and a controller in communication with the
plurality of physical sensors, the method comprising:
monitoring signals generated by the plurality of
physical sensors to determine values for the first
operating parameters;
processing the values for the first operating
parameters using a neural network embedded in the
controller to determine a value for residual mass
fraction, the value for residual mass fraction being
based on a linear combination of the plurality of values
for the first operating parameters such that the neural
network functions as a sensor for the second operating
parameter; and
controlling the vehicle component based on the value
of the second operating parameter.[1]
After reviewing the disclosures of the applied prior art,
we reach the conclusion that the subject matter of claim 5 is
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 7
Application No. 08/852,829
not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, we
agree with the appellants that the use of residual mass
fraction in controlling a vehicle component is not disclosed
in or suggested by the applied prior art.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject independent claim 5, and dependent claims 8
and 9, is reversed.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 15 and 16
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-6 and 8; reply brief,
pp. 1-2) that the applied prior art does not suggest the
claimed subject matter. Specifically, the appellants assert
that the claimed steps of generating test data during
operation of the vehicle component, calibrating a simulator
for simulating operation of the vehicle component using the
test data, generating at least one map, and embedding the
trained neural network into the controller is not disclosed in
or suggested by the applied prior art. The examiner disagrees
for the reasons set forth in the answer (pp. 3-8).
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 8
Application No. 08/852,829
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
A method of manufacturing a sensor for use with a
vehicle component having a controller in communication
with a plurality of physical sensors each generating a
signal indicative of first operating parameters, the
sensor determining values for a second operating
parameter based on values for the plurality of first
operating parameters, the method comprising:
generating test data during operation of the vehicle
component representative of values for the plurality of
first operating parameters for a first set of operating
conditions;
calibrating a simulator for simulating operation of
the vehicle component using the test data;
generating at least one map which characterizes
performance of the vehicle component as a function of
predetermined parameters, the map being based on output
of the simulator for a second set of operating
conditions;
adjusting weights corresponding to nodes of a neural
network based on the at least one map so as to develop a
trained neural network; and
embedding the trained neural network into the
controller by storing a representation of the trained
neural network in computer readable media, the
representation including a plurality of instructions
executable by a microprocessor and data representing the
weights corresponding to the nodes of the neural network,
such that the trained neural network determines values
for the second operating parameter based on values for
the plurality of first operating parameters.
After reviewing the disclosures of the applied prior art,
we reach the conclusion that the subject matter of claim 1 is
not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, while
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 9
Application No. 08/852,829
Puskorius '750 does teach (column 5, lines 52-55) that trained
networks can be embedded into dedicated neural network
hardware chips, the combined teachings of the applied prior
art do not teach or suggest the claimed steps of calibrating a
simulator for simulating operation of the vehicle component
using the test data, generating at least one map which
characterizes performance of the vehicle component as a
function of predetermined parameters, the map being based on
output of the simulator for a second set of operating
conditions, and embedding the trained neural network into the
controller.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Puskorius
'700 in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-
noted limitations stems from hindsight knowledge derived from
the appellants' own disclosure. The use of such hindsight
knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L.
Gore and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553,
220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
851 (1984).
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 10
Application No. 08/852,829
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject independent claim 1, and dependent claims
2, 4, 15 and 16, is reversed.
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 11
Application No. 08/852,829
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge
)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 12
Application No. 08/852,829
BROOKS & KUSHMAN
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1351
Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 13
Application No. 08/852,829
JVN/dl