Ex Parte Holtz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2013

11496974 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VINCENT HOLTZ and JEAN SIEFFERT
____________________

Appeal 2011-005241
Application 11/496,974
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005241
Application 11/496,974

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a torque converter clutch control system
having a lock mode including both a low slip regulation sub-mode and a
hard lock sub-mode. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A torque converter clutch control system, comprising:
a mode determination module that receives a lock request to
enter a lock mode that includes a lock low slip regulation mode
and a hard lock mode, and that selects between the lock low slip
regulation mode and the hard lock mode based on the lock
request; and
a pressure control module that regulates pressure to a torque
converter during the lock low slip regulation mode such that a
target slip is maintained and commands a maximum pressure to
the torque converter during the hard lock mode to prevent slip.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Koenig US 5,531,302 Jul. 2, 1996

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2 and 4-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Koenig. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-005241
Application 11/496,974

3
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koenig. Ans. 7.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1, 2 and 4-24 as anticipated by Koenig
The Examiner found that Koenig discloses all the elements of claim 1,
specifically, a torque converter clutch control system having a torque
converter clutch (TCC), a mode determination module that selects between a
lock low slip regulation mode (controlled capacity (CC mode)) and a hard
lock mode, and a pressure control module that regulates pressure to the
torque convertor to maintain a target slip in the lock low slip regulation
mode and a maximum pressure in the hard lock mode to prevent slip. Ans. 4
citing Koenig col. 2, ll. 1-9.
Appellants argue that despite disclosure of a clutch slip control (CC)
mode and a lock mode, Koenig does not teach or suggest “a lock request to
enter a lock mode that includes a lock low slip regulation mode and a hard
lock mode” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10. Appellants differentiate their
claim from Koenig based on the associative arrangement of two specific
claim elements, “a lock request” and “a lock mode”, asserting that Koenig
does not disclose receiving (1) a lock request to enter (2) a lock mode that
includes a lock low slip regulation mode and a hard lock mode. App. Br. 11,
Reply Br. 5-7. Appellants contend that “Koenig is silent as to the TCU 180
receiving a lock request to activate TCC control” where Koenig only
discloses controlling the TCC based upon various engine, braking and
transmission parameters. Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue that having
received the lock request, Koenig further fails to disclose the lock mode
Appeal 2011-005241
Application 11/496,974

4
including two sub-modes, (a) the lock low slip regulation mode, and (b) the
hard lock mode. App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 5-7.
The Examiner’s finding that a slip regulation is disclosed by the CC
mode in Koenig’s TCC control system is partially correct. However claim 1
does not merely recite that the torque converter clutch control system
comprises a slip regulation mode and a hard lock mode. Claim 1 requires
first that the mode determination module receives “a lock request” to enter
the lock mode, and second, that the lock mode includes both “a lock low slip
regulation mode and a hard lock mode.” The Examiner’s reasoning that the
lock request was met by the TCC control being activated does not explain
how Koenig discloses the lock request element of Appellants claims. Ans.
8. Koenig’s TCC is not activated solely for the LOCK MODE, but is
operative at all times in both modes to effectuate transitions back and forth
between the CC Mode and the LOCK MODE. See Koenig Col. 2, ll. 2-8.
The “lock mode” as recited in claim 1 is not merely a label as the
Examiner interprets this claim term. Ans. 8. The “lock mode” has a
particular meaning in the claim relative to the TCC control, that is when
operating conditions are appropriate and “a lock request” is received, the
clutch essentially locks the TC impeller to the TC turbine. Consistent with
our understanding of a lock request, the lock mode cannot, as the Examiner
found, be interpreted as “any active torque convertor control.” Ans. 8. Our
understanding is consistent with Appellants’ Specification which explains
that it is known in the art:
[w]hen an "on mode" is commanded, pressure to the clutch is
electronically controlled to achieve the target slip value. The
converter is not completely locked. When a "lock on mode" is
commanded, a maximum pressure is supplied to the torque
Appeal 2011-005241
Application 11/496,974

5
converter to fully lock the torque converter clutch. Slip is
essentially eliminated in the lock on mode.
Spec. para. [0007]. The meaning of “lock mode” as understood by those of
ordinary skill in the art therefore does not extend across the entire range of
active torque converter control to cover also the “on mode” as the Examiner
interprets it. Appellants “lock mode” is a distinct mode of the torque
convertor control which must be requested and entered into after receiving
the lock request from the mode determination module. Our understanding of
“lock mode” also comports with Fig. 18A of Koenig to which the Examiner
refers, showing slip (∆N) as controlled by the TCC first in the “on mode” i.e.
CC Mode, and then in the LOCK MODE. Ans. 8. With the TCC operative
at all times between the distinct CC mode and Lock Mode in Koenig there is
no lock request to enter the distinct “Lock Mode” as shown in Fig. 18A
between t3 and t4 which illustrates the complete lock-up of the clutch with no
low slip regulation.
1

Consequently, the CC Mode disclosed in Koenig is properly equated
with the “on mode” as known in the art and is not included in, or part of the
separate and distinct “lock mode” as claimed. We agree with Appellants
that Koenig does not disclose “a lock request to enter a lock mode” having
both (1) the lock low slip regulation mode, and (2) the hard lock mode,
Koenig fails to disclose a lock request and only discloses the hard lock mode
with no low slip regulation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 1.

1
We understand the initial segment of ∆N tending towards zero “0”
slip just after t3 to be a transition to complete clutch lock-up based on the
over pressure supplied to the TC by the torque convertor fluid pump.

Appeal 2011-005241
Application 11/496,974

6
As claims 2 and 4-11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, we
do not sustain the rejection of these claims. Where independent claim 12
includes the same or similar limitations to claim 1 “wherein the lock mode
includes a lock low slip regulation mode and a hard lock mode,” we also do
not sustain the rejection of claim 12 and its relative dependent claims 13-21.
Independent claim 22 similarly recites to claims 1 and 12 that in a lock mode
of the clutch “the lock request includes one of a lock low slip request and a
hard lock request,” and therefore we also do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of clam 22 and its dependent claims 23 and 24.

Rejection II
Claim 3 as unpatentable over Koenig.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 3 which depends
directly from claim 1, the modification of Koenig does not remedy the
deficiencies of Koenig as described supra. The rejection of claim 3 cannot
likewise be sustained.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

ELD