Ex Parte Hamama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2014

12269346 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________

Ex parte WAJDI B. HAMAMA, CRAIG M. SAWDON, ERIC FERCH,
HAMID M. ESFAHAN, JOHN F. VAN GILDER, BRIAN D. FRANCIS,
and ANTHONY E. CUBR
___________

Appeal 2012-004873
Application 12/269,346
Technology Center 3700
___________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-004873
Application 12/269,346

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Wajdi B. Hamama, Craig M. Sawdon, Eric Ferch, Hamid M. Esfahan,
John F. Van Gilder, Brian D. Francis, and Anthony E. Cubr (Appellants)
seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-20, the
only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to diagnostic systems and methods
for engine knock (Specification ¶ [0002]).
Claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter added), is
exemplary.
1. A knock diagnostic module, comprising:
[(a)] a digital signal processor (DSP) that generates Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT) data based on output from a vibration sensor
measured during a knock window around a firing event of a
first cylinder;
[(b)] a data reduction module that determines an intensity value
for the firing event based on the FFT data;
[(c)] a processing module that determines whether knock
occurred based on the intensity value and an average intensity
value determined for the first cylinder;
[(d)] a knock module that increments a sample count for the
first cylinder in response to the firing event of the first cylinder
and selectively increments a knock count for the first cylinder
based on whether knock occurred;
[(e)] a knock analysis module that analyzes the knock count of
the first cylinder when the sample count of the first cylinder
reaches a predetermined value and selectively generates an
excessive knock signal when the knock count exceeds a
predetermined threshold; and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed November 16, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February
6, 2012), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 27, 2011).
Appeal 2012-004873
Application 12/269,346

3

[(f)] a remedial action module that selectively performs a
remedial action based on the excessive knock signal.
(App. Br. 21, Claims App’x.)

The following rejections are before us on review: (1) claims 1, 4, 11,
and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iwata
(US 4,269,154, iss. May 26, 1981), Youngblood (US 4,376,429, iss. Mar.
15, 1983), Hernandez (US 2007/0028893 A1, pub. Feb. 8, 2007), and
Wilstermann (US 6,230,546 B1, iss. May 21, 2001); (2) claims 2, 3, 12, and
13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iwata,
Youngblood, Hernandez, Wilstermann, and Nakashima (US 7,246,600 B2,
iss. July 24, 2007); (3) claims 5-7 and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Iwata, Youngblood, Hernandez, Wilstermann,
Takahashi (US 4,770,143, iss. Sept. 13, 1988 ), and Saito (US 5,524,206, iss.
June 4, 1996); and (4) claims 8-10 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Iwata, Youngblood, Hernandez, Wilstermann,
Kawamura (US 4,821,194, iss. Apr. 11, 1989), and Saito.
We AFFIRM.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence.2
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Iwata, Youngblood,
Hernandez, and Wilstermann (1) lacks certain elements of independent
claim 1 (App. Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 5-6), (2) is driven by hindsight (App. Br.

2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2012-004873
Application 12/269,346

4

11-12, Reply Br. 7), and (3) would not have been obvious (App. Br. 14-18,
Reply Br. 9-11). In contrast, the Examiner explains how the combination
teaches the disputed elements of claim 1 and why the combination would
have been obvious (Ans. 11-14, 19-26). We are not persuaded the Examiner
erred.
First, Appellants argue that Iwata and Youngblood do not teach a knock
module and a knock analysis module as recited in independent claim 1 either
alone or in combination (App. Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 5-6). In contrast, the
Examiner finds the combination of Iwata and Youngblood teaches these
limitations (Ans. 11-12, 19-21). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Iwata
discloses a knock module and knock counter that measure and count the
firing and knock events on an entire engine basis (Ans. 11-12). However,
the Examiner found that the difference between claimed knock module and
knock analysis module and Iwata is that the claim requires that the
measuring and counting be done on an individual cylinder basis, rather than
on an entire engine basis (Ans. 12). To make up for this difference, the
Examiner relies on Youngblood, which shows knock analysis done on a
cylinder-by-cylinder basis.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Iwata and
Youngblood teaches the claimed knock module and knock analysis module
(Ans. 12-13, 19-21). In particular, we are persuaded by the Examiner’s
findings (1) that Iwata teaches a knock module and knock counter for
multiple cylinders, (2) that the principal difference between claim limitations
and Iwata’s teachings is that the claim requires that the counting and
measuring be done on an individual cylinder basis, and (3) that Youngblood
Appeal 2012-004873
Application 12/269,346

5

teaches that knock analysis can be done on an individual cylinder basis (Ans.
11-12, 19-21).
Thus, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner’s findings that the
combination of Iwata and Youngblood teaches a knock module and a knock
analysis module are in error.
Second, as for Appellants’ arguments that the combination of Iwata and
Youngblood is the result of impermissible hindsight (App. Br 11-12, Reply
Br. 7), we are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner has shown
that assessing knock on an individual cylinder basis was a well-known
technique (Ans. 12). Moreover, there are only a limited number of options
on how the number of knocks and firings can be counted. They can be
either counted by all the cylinders, by groups of cylinders, or by individual
cylinders. Such limited options support a conclusion of obviousness. KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402-03 (2007). In addition, we agree
with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to
combine Iwata and Youngblood because individual cylinder monitoring
provides more robust system assessment and control for increased
performance (Ans. 12, Youngblood, col. 1, l. 49-col. 2, l. 11). Thus, given
the well-known solution, the limited options, and the motivation to combine
Iwata and Youngblood, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Iwata and Youngblood obvious.
Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to show why the
combination of Iwata, Youngblood, and Hernandez would have been
obvious. In contrast, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to
combine these references because these are known techniques and are within
the capability of one having ordinary skill (Ans. 13, 22-24). We are not
Appeal 2012-004873
Application 12/269,346

6

persuaded of error by the Examiner in combining these references. We
agree with the Examiner that combining the Fast Fourier Transform analysis
technique of Hernandez with the combined teachings of Iwata and
Youngblood would be no more than the combination of known prior art
methods to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. We also
agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to combine the data analysis technique of Hernandez with Iwata
and Youngblood because Hernandez’s signal processing techniques would
allow for the obtaining of an easier to analyze signal.
Finally, we note that Appellants make certain arguments why it would
not have been obvious to combine Wilstermann with Iwata, Youngblood,
and Hernandez. (App. Br. 16-18.) However, the Examiner identifies
Hernandez as containing the same teaching of relying on average intensity
for determining whether knock has occurred for which Wilstermann is cited
(Ans. 24-26). Thus, the combination of Iwata, Youngblood, and Hernandez
teaches this element regardless of whether Wilstermann is included in the
combination, and so we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1. Appellants have offered no separate arguments for either independent
claim 11 or dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, so we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of those claims as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iwata, Youngblood, Hernandez, and Wilstermann is not in
error.
Appeal 2012-004873
Application 12/269,346

7

The rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iwata, Youngblood, Hernandez, Wilstermann, and
Nakashima is not in error.
The rejection of claims 5-7 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iwata, Youngblood, Hernandez, Wilstermann, Takahashi,
and Saito is not in error.
The rejection of claims 8-10 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iwata, Youngblood, Hernandez, Wilstermann, Kawamura,
and Saito is not in error.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

Klh