Ex Parte Fink et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 1, 2019

13816307 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/816,307 03/13/2013
35301 7590 05/03/2019
MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP
CITY PLACE II
185 ASYLUM STREET
HARTFORD, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sven Fink
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.
6495-0570WOUS 2459
EXAMINER
CURTIS, SEAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2019 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):
patentdocket@ip-lawyers .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SVEN FINK and MATT SATERBAK
Appeal2018-008467
Application 13/816,307
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim a method for determining at least one state
characteristic value of an electrical device comprising a microcontroller and
1 Appellants identify Sauer-Danfoss GmbH & Co. OHG as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed May 14, 2018 ("App. Br."), 2.
Appeal2018-008467
Application 13/816,307
a moveable subassembly actuated with a time-varying control signal
generated by a control unit of the microcontroller (independent claim 1 ), an
electrical device (independent claim 9), and an electrically switched
hydraulic device (independent claim 11 ). App. Br. 6-9. Independent claims
1 and 9 illustrate the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below with
emphasis added to highlight contested subject matter:
1. A method for determining at least one state characteristic
value of an electrical device comprising a microcontroller and a
moveable subassembly actuated with a time-varying control
signal generated by a control unit of the microcontroller, the
method comprising:
wherein the time-varying control signal is determined by
comparing a first signal indicating a desired value of the at least
one state characteristic value with a second signal indicating a
current value of the at least one state characteristic value,
wherein the at least one state characteristic value is
determined by an evaluation unit of the microcontroller of the
electrical device using at least one of the frequency of the time-
varying control signal or the switching characteristics of the
time-varying control signal, and
wherein the at least one state characteristic value
includes a measure of a current position of the moveable
subassembly and a velocity of the moveable subassembly as the
moveable subassembly moves between a first position at a first
time and a second position at a second time.
9. An electrical device comprising:
a moveable subassembly configured to move between a
first position and a second position; and
an electrical control device configured to actuate the
moveable subassembly with a time-varying control signal;
wherein the electrical control device determines the time-
varying control signal by comparing a first signal indicating a
desired value of at least one state characteristic value of the
electrical device with a second signal indicating a current value
of the at least one state characteristic value;
2
Appeal2018-008467
Application 13/816,307
wherein the electrical control device comprises an
evaluation unit that determines the at least one state
characteristic value of the electrical device by the time-varying
control signal; and
wherein the at least one state characteristic value
includes a measure of a current position of the moveable
subassembly and a velocity of the moveable subassembly as the
moveable subassembly moves between the first position at a
first time and the second position at a second time.
App. Br. 21, 22 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Similar to claim 9,
independent claim 11 recites an electrically switched hydraulic device that
comprises, in part, an electrical control device comprising an evaluation unit
that determines at least one state characteristic value of the electrically
switched hydraulic device by a time-varying control signal, where the at
least one state characteristic value includes a measure of a current position
of a moveable subassembly and a velocity of the moveable subassembly as
the moveable subassembly moves between a first position at a first time and
a second position at a second time.
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered December 20, 201 7 ("Final Act."), and maintains the
rejections in the Examiner's Answer entered June 28, 2018 ("Ans."):
I. Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Kawabe et al. (US 6,427,971 Bl, issued August 6, 2002);
II. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kawabe in view ofBiichl (US 4,970,622, issued November 13, 1990); and
III. Claims 6 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Kawabe in view of Yamada et al. (US 6,275,368 Bl, issued August 14,
2001).
3
Appeal2018-008467
Application 13/816,307
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellants' contentions, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and rejections of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons set forth in the Appeal
Brief and below.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 11 each recites an electrical device
comprising a control device ( or microcontroller) configured to actuate a
moveable subassembly with a time-varying control signal determined by the
control device, and each of claims 1, 9, and 11 requires the control device to
comprise an evaluation unit that determines at least one state characteristic
value of the device by the time-varying control signal. Claims 1, 9, and 11
each recites that the at least one state characteristic value includes a measure
of a current position of the moveable subassembly and a velocity of the
moveable subassembly as the moveable subassembly moves between a first
position at a first time and a second position at a second time. Thus, claims
1, 9, and 11 each requires the recited electrical device to comprise a control
device comprising an evaluation unit that determines-by a time-varying
control signal-a measure of a current position of a moveable subassembly
and a velocity of the moveable subassembly as the moveable subassembly
moves between a first position at a first time and a second position at a
second time.
The Examiner finds that Kawabe discloses an electrical device
comprising a control device configured to actuate a moveable subassembly
with a time-varying control signal. Final Act. 3, 5-7 (citing Kawabe Fig. 1;
col. 3, 11. 25-29). The Examiner finds that Kawabe discloses that the control
4
Appeal2018-008467
Application 13/816,307
device comprises an evaluation unit that determines at least one state
characteristic value of the electrical device by the time-varying control
signal. Final Act. 3, 6-7 (citing Kawabe Fig. 1; col. 3, 11. 10-13; col. 6, 11.
55-64).
On this appeal record, however, for reasons expressed by Appellants
and discussed below, the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual
basis to establish that Kawabe discloses, or would have suggested, an
electrical device that comprises a control device comprising an evaluation
unit that determines, by a time-varying control signal, a measure of a current
position of a moveable subassembly, and a velocity of the moveable
subassembly as the moveable subassembly moves between a first position at
a first time and a second position at a second time, as required by claims 1,
9, and 11.
Kawabe discloses control system 100 for controlling
electromagnetically actuated valve 200 of internal combustion engine 300
having intake valve 54. Col. 1, 11. 8-11; col. 2, 11. 31-34; Fig. 2. Kawabe
discloses that valve 200 includes electromagnetic actuator 250 comprising
armature 57 (moveable subassembly), which is made of a magnetic material
and is positioned between electromagnets 11, 12. Col. 2, 11. 50-51, 59---64;
Fig. 2. Kawabe discloses that control system 100 includes control unit 1,
engine control unit 8, first and second current control sections 9 and 10,
power source 13, speed sensor 2, and position sensor 3. Col. 3, 11. 14--29;
Fig. 2. Kawabe discloses that speed sensor 2 and position sensor 3 sense the
moving speed and position, respectively, of armature 57, and feed this
information to control unit 1, while engine control unit 8 issues a valve
open/ close instruction to control unit 1. Col. 3, 11. 10-17. Kawabe discloses
5
Appeal2018-008467
Application 13/816,307
that, based on these three inputs, control unit 1 issues an instruction signal to
either first current control section 9 or to second current control section 10 to
carry out pulse width modulation control of current supplied by power
source 13 to electromagnet 11 or to electromagnet 12. Col. 3, 11. 17-32.
Kawabe discloses that energizing electromagnet 11 or 12 in this manner
causes electromagnet 11 or 12 to apply electromagnetic force to armature
57, which results in valve 54 opening or closing. Col. 4, 11. 16-41; col. 5, 11.
4--16.
As Appellants correctly argue (App. Br. 12-13), the Examiner does
not identify any disclosure in Kawabe that indicates, or would have
suggested, that control unit 1 (evaluation unit) determines, by a time-varying
control signal, a measure of a current position of armature 57 (movable
subassembly) and a velocity of armature 57 as it moves between a first
position at a first time and a second position at a second time ( a state
characteristic value).
As Appellants point out (App. Br. 12), Kawabe discloses that speed
sensor 2 and position sensor 3 determine the speed and position of armature
57 (moveable subassembly), rather than disclosing that a time-varying
control signal determines a measure of a current position of armature 57 and
a velocity of armature 57 as it moves between first and second positions at
first and second times ( a state characteristic value). And as Appellants also
point out (App. Br. 12), although Kawabe discloses that first and second
current control sections 9, 10 carry out pulse width modulation control
(time-varying control) of current supplied by power source 13 to
electromagnets 11 and 12, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in
Kawabe of using this pulse width modulation control to determine a measure
6
Appeal2018-008467
Application 13/816,307
of a current position and a velocity of armature 57 as it moves between first
and second positions at first and second times (a state characteristic value).
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner asserts in the
Answer that "one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably argue that the
evaluation units (speed/position sensors) of the microcontroller as taught by
Kawabe use[] the switching characteristics of the time-varying signal to
determine the state characteristic value." Ans. 4--5. The Examiner reasons
that "[w]hen one considers that the position/speed sensors continuously
perform a sensing function during the operation of the valve, the sensing
functions are performed after a PMW [pulse width modulation] signal has
been used to move the armature of the valve, and thus 'use[] a time-varying
signal' ... to determine the at least one state characteristic." Ans. 5.
The Examiner, however, does not identify any disclosure in Kawabe
indicating that the position and speed sensors "continuously" perform a
sensing function during the operation of Kawabe' s valve. Furthermore, as
Appellants point out (Reply Br. 3), Kawabe's disclosure of using a pulse
width modulation signal to control current supplied to electromagnets 11 and
12 to open or close valve 54, and disclosure of measuring the position and
speed of valve armature 57 using speed 2 and position 3 sensors, does not
constitute a disclosure of determining, by the pulse width modulation signal
(time-varying control signal), a measure of a current position of armature 57
(movable subassembly), and a velocity of armature 57 as it moves between a
first position at a first time and a second position at a second time ( a state
characteristic value). Although the "sensing functions" may be performed
after a pulse width modulation signal has been used to move armature 57 of
valve 54, it does not follow, as the Examiner asserts, that the pulse width
7
Appeal2018-008467
Application 13/816,307
modulation signal (time-varying control signal) determines a measure of a
current position of armature 57 (movable subassembly) and a velocity of
armature 57 as it moves between a first position at a first time and a second
position at a second time ( a state characteristic value).
Accordingly, on this appeal record, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that Kawabe discloses or would have
suggested an electrical device that comprises a control device comprising an
evaluation unit that determines a measure of a current position of a
moveable subassembly and a velocity of the moveable subassembly as the
moveable subassembly moves between a first position at a first time and a
second position at a second time by a time-varying control signal, as
required by claims 1, 9, and 11.
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1
and 9, and claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-17, which each depend from claim 1
or 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 9, and 11, and claims 2-8, 10, and 12-20, which each
depend from claim 1, 9, or 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 2
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
2 The Examiner does not rely on any disclosure in the additional references
applied in the§ 103(a) rejections (Buehl and Yamada) that remedies the
deficiencies of Kawabe discussed above. Final Act. 7-9.
8