Ex parte Inoue

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 20, 2000

08408154 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MASAHIRO INOUE
____________
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
____________
HEARD: November 29, 2000
____________
Before FLEMING, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal from the final rejection
of claims 1-21, all of the claims pending in the present
application. An amendment after final rejection filed April
24, 1997 was denied entry by the Examiner while a subsequent
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
2
amendment after final rejection filed May 27, 1997 was
approved for entry by the Examiner.
The claimed invention relates to a motor control device
for an electric vehicle which has a motor powered by a
rechargeable battery. During deceleration periods,
regenerative energy produced by the vehicle motor is used to
recharge the battery. Appellant indicates at pages 3-5 of the
specification that excessive charging of the battery can be
prevented by suppressing the amount of regenerative energy
produced from the motor when either the battery voltage or
charging current exceeds a predetermined value.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A motor control device for an electric vehicle which has a
motor powered by a rechargeable battery, said motor control
device comprising:
voltage detecting means for detecting a battery voltage
of said rechargeable battery; and
regenerative braking amount control means for suppressing
an amount of regenerative braking energy supplied from said
motor to said rechargeable battery by controlling said motor
such that said battery voltage remains less than or equal to a
predetermined voltage value, wherein said regenerative braking
amount control means suppresses said amount of regenerative
braking energy when said battery voltage exceeds a first
predetermined voltage.
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
The Appeal Brief was filed September 24, 1997. In1
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated October 29, 1997, a
Reply Brief was filed December 24, 1997 which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner without further comment as
indicated in the communication dated January 15, 1998.
3
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Kamaike 4,554,999 Nov. 26,
1985
Sun et al. (Sun) 5,359,308 Oct. 25,
1994
(filed Oct. 27, 1993)
Claims 1-21 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Kamaike and Sun.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the1
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejection and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
4
reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the
Briefs along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention set forth in claims 1-21.
Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837
F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
5
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led
to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to
arrive
at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a
whole
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill
in
the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933
(Fed.
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
6
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 2, the sole
independent claims on appeal, Appellant’s primary argument in
the Briefs centers on the contention that neither of the
Kamaike or Sun references discloses the claimed “...control
means for suppressing an amount of regenerative braking energy
supplied form said motor to said rechargeable battery by
controlling said motor...” under certain specified conditions,
i.e. excess voltage or charging current. After careful review
of the Kamaike and Sun references in light of the arguments of
record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s position as
stated in the Briefs.
Our interpretation of the disclosures of Kamaike and Sun
coincides with that of Appellant, i.e. no control of a vehicle
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
7
motor is provided which operates to suppress the regenerative
energy supplied to a battery. In Kamaike, as illustrated in
Figure 3 and described beginning at column 3, line 56, the
control circuitry 14 operates to control the amount of power
supplied to battery 4 in order to equalize the charging and
discharging rate. We find no control of motor 6, however,
which operates to suppress the amount of regenerative energy
supplied to battery 4 as claimed.
Similarly, in Sun, we find no suppression of supplied
regenerative energy from motor/generator 16 to battery 22.
While the motor/generator 16 operates to rapidly charge and
discharge the SMES energy storage device 20, which in turn
provides a slow charge and discharge to battery 22, this
battery charge from SMES 20 occurs without limit (Sun, column
8, lines 25-28). Further, although Sun suggests a battery
charge limit (column 8,
line 22-24), this passage refers to the operation of charger
generator 34 which is controlled by gasoline engine 10 and not
the battery powered motor generator 16.
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
8
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that,
since all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not
taught or suggested by the prior art, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 2, as well as
claims 3-21 dependent thereon, cannot be sustained.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-21
is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
9
Administrative Patent Judge )
lp
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
10
SUGHRUE MION ZINN MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20037-3202
Leticia
Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
APJ RUGGIERO
APJ FLEMING
APJ BARRY
DECISION: REVERSED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s):
Prepared: July 3, 2001
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT