Ex Parte Crombez et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 17, 200910708516 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2009) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation