Ex Parte Crombez et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 17, 2009

10708516 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DALE CROMBEZ and JOHN CZUBAY
____________

Appeal 2007-001458
Application 10/708,516
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: August 17, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, LINDA E. HORNER, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILLIAM F. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-20. These are
the only claims in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.

Appeal 2007-001458
Application 10/708,516

2
The claimed subject matter is directed to a method for varying the
starting point for diminishing the regenerative braking torque in an
automobile as the automobile is slowed or stopped.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method for controlling regenerative braking in a
vehicle having a regenerative braking system, the method
comprising:

determining a first vehicle condition when the vehicle is
braking;

determining a first predetermined value corresponding to
the first vehicle condition;

determining a second vehicle condition; and

reducing regenerative braking torque to zero beginning
when the second vehicle condition reaches the first
predetermined value.

REFERENCES
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Kidston US 5,615,933 Apr. 01, 1997
Kuno US 6,244,674 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
Crombez US 6,309,031 B1 Oct. 30, 2001
Schneider US 6,325,470 B1 Dec. 04, 2001
Hara US 2002/0180266 A1 Dec. 05, 2002

Appeal 2007-001458
Application 10/708,516

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Schneider in view of Hara.
Claims 6-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Schneider in view of Hara, and further in view of Crombez, Kuno or
Kidston.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner. As a result of this review,
we have determined that the applied prior art does not establish the prima
facie obviousness of the Appellants’ method. Therefore, the rejections on
appeal are reversed. Our reasons follow.
In our view, the Examiner has failed to articulate reasoning with
rational underpinnings as to why Appellants’ claimed subject matter is prima
facie obvious. The Examiner states that the values and conditions claimed by
Appellants could be just about anything under the sun. Answer 3. If this
were the case, it would seem that the Examiner could point to at least one
specific example in Schneider or Hara or the combined disclosures of
Schneider and Hara that would have taught the methods steps of the claimed
subject matter and therefore rendered the claimed subject matter prima facie
obvious. While we agree that the values and conditions that the claims refer
to are well known, that in and of itself does not render Appellants’ claimed
method prima facie obvious. Instead, the Examiner must show that these
conditions and values either have been used in a method similar to
Appellants’ method or that such a method would have been prima facie
obvious when such steps were combined with predictable results. The
Appeal 2007-001458
Application 10/708,516

4
Examiner fails to sustain his burden in this regard.
The Examiner states that “[i]t would have been obvious to the
ordinary worker in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated
the teachings of the reduction of regenerative braking force as taught by
Hara and Schneider to improve overall drivability of the vehicle.” Answer 4.
However, the Examiner fails to state where the precise steps relied on are
found in the disclosures of Hara and Schneider and fails to state any rational
basis for the combination of any such steps into the method of the claimed
subject matter.
On page 5 of the Answer the Examiner states that one of ordinary skill
would have found it obvious to have Schneider modified with look up tables,
torque maps, or torque curves to adjust the regenerative braking torque. Here
again, the Examiner designates no specific method steps found in the prior
art and includes no reasoning in support of this conclusion of obviousness.
Furthermore, even if it were true that the combined disclosures of Schneider
and Hara amounted to an “alternate equivalent method”, this appears to be
irrelevant to a legal conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner states that Appellants’ method steps are broad in scope
and that they are well known and inherent in the recited patents. However,
the Examiner has failed to state how these steps are necessarily present in
the applied prior art.
Finally, the fact that Schneider is capable of measuring the same
values and conditions that Appellants measure, is not seen as evidence that
Appellants’ claimed method is obvious over either the combination of
Schneider and Hara, or the combination of Schneider and Hara in view of
Crombez, Kuno or Kidston.
Appeal 2007-001458
Application 10/708,516

5
For these reasons, the rejections of all of the claims on appeal are
reversed.
REVERSED

Vsh

BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD MI 48075-1238