Ex Parte Gibson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2016

12707564 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121707,564 02/17/2010 Alex O'Connor Gibson
36865 7590 02/08/2016
ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE, LLP
806 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205
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.
81194128 2775
EXAMINER
HAMAOUI, DAVIDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEX O'CONNOR GIBSON, JOSEPH NORMAN ULREY,
JOHN ERIC ROLLINGER, and
JEFFREY ALLEN DOERING
Appeal2013-008829
Application 12/707,564
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gibson et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-12 and 14. 1, 2 Appellants'
representative presented oral arguments on January 13, 2016. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Ford Global Technologies,
LLC." Appeal Br. 3 (filed Oct. 16, 2012).
2 Claim 1-9, 13, and 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Id. at 24--28,
Claims Appendix.
Appeal2013-008829
Application 12/707,564
STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a method for improving
starting of an engine, the method particularly useful for engines that are
stopped and then restarted. Spec. I :4---6. Claim 10 is the sole independent
claim on appeal and recites:
10. A method for starting an engine, comprising:
stopping the engine;
automatically starting the engine in response to a
condition;
in a first mode, injecting fuel to at least one cylinder
during the automatic start, the injection of fuel during a cycle of
a cylinder and comprising a first injection and a second
injection, and transitioning to injecting fuel once during a cycle
of the cylinder in response to intake manifold pressure less than
a threshold pressure and an engine speed greater than a
threshold speed during the automatic starting of the engine; and
in a second mode, injecting fuel to at least one cylinder
during the automatic start, the injection of fuel during a cycle of
the cylinder and comprising a first injection and a second
injection, and richening an air-fuel mixture of the at least one
cylinder in response to the intake manifold pressure being not
less than the threshold pressure and in response to the engine
speed being less than the threshold speed during the automatic
starting of the engine.
Appeal Br. 25-26, Claims Appendix.
2
Appeal2013-008829
Application 12/707,564
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Storhok (US 2008/0196696 Al, pub. Aug. 21,
2008), Chmielewski (US 4,577,599, iss. Mar. 25, 1986) and/or
Kinugasa (US 5,979,157, iss. Nov. 9, 1999);
II. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Storhok, Chmielewski, and/or Kinugasa, and
Onoyama (US 6,881,170 B2, iss. Apr. 19, 2005);
III. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Storhok, Chmielewski, and/or Kinugasa, Onoyama,
and Takeyama (US 7,472,016 B2, iss. Dec. 30, 2008); and
IV. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Storhok, Chmielewski, and/or Kinugasa, Onoyama,
Takeyama, Fu (US 2004/0100221 Al, pub. May 27, 2004), and Miller
(US 2010/0288235 Al, pub. Nov. 18, 2010).
Answer 5-9 (mailed Apr. 25, 2013).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 10
Independent claim 10 requires, inter alia, "richening an air-fuel
mixture of the at least one cylinder in response to the intake manifold
pressure being not less than the threshold pressure and in response to the
engine speed being less than the threshold speed during the automatic
3
Appeal2013-008829
Application 12/707,564
starting of the engine" (the "richening limitation"). Appeal Br. 25-26,
Claims Appendix.
The Examiner determines that Storhok fails to disclose the "richening
limitation" and instead finds that "Chmielewski and Kinugasa disclose the
technique of richening an air-fuel mixture in response to an engine not
having reached a desirable steady-state operating condition (i.e. still
starting), wherein the desirable steady-state operating condition is
determined at least as a function of engine speed." Answer 6-7. The
Examiner acknowledges that neither Chmielewski nor Kinugasa teach,
"richening an air-fuel mixture in response to the intake manifold pressure
being not less than the threshold pressure," but the Examiner reasons that
Storhok establishes "the determination of engine starting stability as a
function of engine speed and manifold pressure." Id. at 11. According to
the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the system of Storhok with the richening operation of
Chmielewski and Kinugasa to provide a desirable stable starting condition as
a function of engine speed and intake manifold pressure. Id. at 7.
Appellants contend that the combination is improper because there is
no evidence supporting the Examiner's assertion that the manifold pressure
and engine speed thresholds would be obvious for use in both the first and
second modes, as recited in claim 10. Appeal Br. 15. In particular,
Appellants argue
The approach of claim 10 explicitly integrates the two modes in
that both utilize the engine speed and manifold pressure
thresholds, but in different ways. There is no evidence of
record that shows why, or how, both a manifold pressure and
engine speed threshold would be used in each of a first and
second mode in coordination with one another.
4
Appeal2013-008829
Application 12/707,564
Id. at 16.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner states:
Briefly restated, both modes rely on the notion that they
occur "in response to intake manifold pressure less than a
threshold pressure and an engine speed greater than a
threshold speed during the automatic starting of the engine".
As has been established above, it is known to use these metrics
to determine starting stability. This applies to the teachings
regarding the first mode operations as well as the second. In
other words, since the operations of both modes are learned
from references that establish the operations in a context of
being performed until the engine has become stable, the method
of determining engine stability is equally pertinent to both
modes.
Regarding the arguments drawn to whether or not the
modes are integrated; these do nothing to demonstrate that the
rejection is improper. The proposed combination set forth in the
rejection yields the limitations. It should be noted that the first
and second modes are only separate because they are labeled as
such. There is no reason they couldn't be performed together.
Answer 12.
We disagree with the Examiner's interpretation of the claim language.
First, only the first mode of claim 10 is performed "in response to intake
manifold pressure less than a threshold pressure and an engine speed greater
than a threshold speed," not both modes as proffered by the Examiner. See
supra. Rather, the second mode is performed "in response to the intake
manifold pressure being not less than the threshold pressure and in response
to the engine speed being less than the threshold speed." Second, it is
unreasonable to interpret that the first and second modes are only separate
because they are labeled as such and that both modes could be performed
together. The test of obviousness requires that one compare the claim's
5
Appeal2013-008829
Application 12/707,564
"subject matter as a whole" with the prior art "to which said subject matter
pertains." 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 10 as a whole recites the combination of a
first and second mode, both modes using the same combined triggers so that
one of the specified transitions is utilized at the appropriate point. Each
mode is activated in response to an adjustment of the combined triggers
during the automatic starting of the engine. For instance, both modes cannot
be performed together because that would require the intake manifold
pressure to be both less and not less than the threshold pressure at the same
time. The same reasoning applies to engine speed in each of the first and
second modes of claim 10. Thus, by interpreting the first and second modes
in isolation, we agree with Appellants that the rejection of record does not
account for the relationship between the first and second modes together as
tied to the same triggers. See Reply Br. 4. Claim 10 requires using both the
intake manifold pressure and engine speed with respect to the same
thresholds in each of the two modes, causing the selection of whether to
transition to a single injection or to enriched combustion. Therefore, on the
record before us, the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the cited references alone or in combination render obvious the
subject matter of claim 10 as a whole.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 10.
Rejections II-IV
Claims 11, 12, and 14
Claims 11, 12, and 14, depend either directly or indirectly from
independent claim 10. The Examiner's use of the disclosures of Onoyama,
Takeyama, Fu, and Miller do not remedy the deficiencies of the combined
6
Appeal2013-008829
Application 12/707,564
teachings of Storhok, Chmielewski, and/or Kinugasa, as discussed supra.
See Final Act. 4---6. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, we also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, and 14.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 10-12 and 14 is reversed.
REVERSED
7