Ex Parte Dlugoss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2016

12235676 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/235,676 09/23/2008
74175 7590 02/08/2016
Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Randall B. Dlugoss
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.
P001360-PTT-CD 6515
EXAMINER
DO,TRUCM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2016 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):
troydocketing@hdp.com
gm-inbox@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDALL B. DLUGOSS
and MICHEAL P. PORTELL
Appeal2013-005041
Application 12/235,676
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-17. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-005041
Application 12/235,676
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1.
Claims 12-17 depend from claim 11. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A control system of a vehicle, comprising:
a torque sensor that determines a driveline torque
signal based on a torque produced by a device of a driveline;
a vehicle direction module that determines whether
a vehicle direction includes one of a forward direction and a
reverse direction based on the driveline torque signal; and
a control module that controls the vehicle based on
the vehicle direction.
REJECTION
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Joe (US 6,931,316 B2; iss. Aug. 16, 2005) and Ouyang (US 2007/
0227268 Al; pub. Oct. 4, 2007).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Joe discloses a vehicle control system with a
torque sensor 87 that determines a driveline torque signal, a vehicle direction
module 105 that determines a vehicle forward or reverse direction based on
a driveline speed sensor 83, and control module (TCVT 10). Final Act. 4--5
(citations omitted). The Examiner found that Joe's vehicle direction module
does not determine forward or reverse directions based on a driveline torque
signal (i.e., a driveline torque value), but Ou yang teaches a torque sensor
that produces a signal based on spinning direction of a rotating shaft in a
clockwise or counterclockwise direction. Id. at 5.
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to modify the
input signal to the vehicle direction module of Joe to use torque signals as
2
Appeal2013-005041
Application 12/235,676
disclosed by Ouyang to achieve the claimed invention, and there would have
been a reasonable expectation of success because a specific mathematical
correlation exists between a spinning direction of a driveshaft and vehicle
direction, i.e., when the vehicle is moving forward the spinning direction of
the driveshaft is clockwise and vice versa. Id. In addition, the Examiner
determined that this modification was a simple substitution of one known
sensor for another for predictable results. Ans. 4.
Appellants agree that Joe determines a vehicle's direction of travel
based on a speed signal produced by a speed sensor and does not determine
a forward or reverse vehicle direction based on a driveline torque signal or
value. Appeal Br. 9-10 (citations omitted); Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue
that Ouyang teaches a torque sensor that measures torque on a rotating shaft
but is silent as to a torque sensor producing a signal based on the rotational
direction of a shaft, as the Examiner alleges. Appeal Br. 11. Appellants
further argue that the cited portions of Ouyang describe the application of
torque T to rotating shaft 111 in counter-clockwise and clockwise directions
but Ouyang is silent about determining vehicle direction based on a driveline
torque signal from a driveline torque sensor. Id. at 11-12, 13; Reply Br. 3.
Appellants also argue that even if a specific mathematical correlation
exists between the spinning direction of a driveshaft and vehicle direction, as
the Examiner alleges, claim 1 does not recite determining vehicle direction
based upon the spinning direction of a driveshaft, and the Examiner fails to
recognize that some driveline devices rotate in the same direction regardless
of whether a vehicle travels forward or reverse. Reply Br. 3, 4. Appellants
assert that Joe discloses a torque sensor 87 for detecting transmission input
torque Tin but uses a speed sensor 83 to determine vehicle direction of travel
3
Appeal2013-005041
Application 12/235,676
so the combination is not a simple substitution or obvious because neither
Joe nor Ou yang determines if a vehicle's direction is forward or reverse
based on the torque measured using a torque sensor. Id. at 4, 5. Appellants
contend that claim 11 includes similar limitations to claim 1 and is allowable
for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Joe and Ouyang, individually or in combination, render obvious a system or
method that determines vehicle direction in a forward or reverse direction
based on a driveline torque signal, as recited in claims 1 and 11. Joe teaches
a forward/reverse detection section 105 that determines whether a vehicle is
traveling forward or backward based on signals received from speed sensors
83, 84 that detect the rotation direction of output and input disks of a toroidal
continuously variable transmission (TCVT 10). Joe, 27: 15-25, Figs. 14, 15.
Thus, Joe teaches use of speed sensors to detect rotation direction of TCVT
disks and determine a vehicle's direction of travel. Joe teaches torque sensor
87 to monitor or detect transmission input torque Tin, but Joe does not teach
use of torque sensor 87 to determine vehicle direction. See id. at 12:43--46,
22:33-37, Fig. 14
Ouyang teaches a magnetostrictive torque sensor 1 used to measure
the direction in which torque Tis applied to rotating shaft 1, i.e., whether
torque is applied in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction.
Ouyang i-f 9; Ans. 3. Ouyang also teaches that the direction and magnitude
of torque that is applied to rotating shaft 2 can be detected. Ouyang i-f 82;
Ans. 3. However, the Examiner has not established that Ouyang discloses a
torque sensor being used to produce a vehicle direction signal based on the
spinning direction of the shaft. See, e.g., Ans. 3.
4
Appeal2013-005041
Application 12/235,676
The Examiner's finding that Ouyang discloses a torque sensor that
detects the spinning direction of a rotating shaft (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3--4) is
not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ouyang discloses the use of
torque sensors to detect the direction and magnitude of torque that is applied
to a rotating shaft. Ouyang i-fi-19, 82. Figure 14 of Ouyang shows torques T
being applied in opposing counterclockwise and counterclockwise directions
to the same rotary shaft 111 without any indication of the rotational direction
of rotary shaft 111. Nor does Ouyang disclose any relationship between the
measured torque directions and magnitudes and the rotational direction of
shaft 111. Therefore, the combination has not been shown to be a simple
substitution of Ou yang' s torque sensor for Joe's speed sensor that detects the
rotation direction of TCVT 10 disks because Ou yang' s torque sensor detects
the direction and magnitude of torque applied to a rotating shaft, rather than
the direction of rotation of the rotating shaft. Ouyang i-fi-19, 82.
The Examiner thus has not explained why a skilled artisan would have
been motivated to modify Joe, which determines vehicle direction of travel
with speed sensors 83, 84, rather than torque sensor 87, based on Ouyang's
use of a torque sensor to determine the direction and magnitude of torque
applied to a rotating shaft 111. Neither reference teaches or suggests the use
of sensed torque to determine vehicle direction, as claimed.
We do not sustain the rejections of claims 1 and 11 or their dependent
claims 2-10 and 12-17.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-17.
REVERSED
5