Ex parte Kashimura et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 1999

08350119 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 1999)

Application for patent filed November 29, 1994. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not
written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte YUICHI KASHIMURA, YUTAKA TAKAKU, and TOSHIO ISHII
____________
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,1191
____________
HEARD: September 15, 1999
____________
Before KRASS, MARTIN, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5 through 15. Claims 2 and 3
have been canceled. Claim 4 is objected to as depending from
a rejected base claim.
The appellants' invention relates to a method and
apparatus for diagnosing a misfire in a multi-cylinder engine
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
2
in which a combustion state parameter is compared to a
threshold level which
is corrected regularly. Claim 8 is illustrative of the
claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
8. A combustion state diagnosis apparatus of a multi-
cylinder engine to diagnose combustion conditions in a
specific cylinder of a plurality of cylinders by measuring
revolution speed of the engine for each cylinder, obtaining,
as a combustion state parameter, a difference between
revolution speed of the specific cylinder and revolution speed
of at least one of the other cylinders, and comparing the
combustion state parameter with a prescribed threshold level
which is a function of at least one of the engine revolution
speed and engine load, comprising:
means for correcting said threshold level by a value
which is a function of said engine revolution speed.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Maddock et al. (Maddock) 5,041,980 Aug.
20, 1991
Akase 5,307,671 May 03,
1994
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
In the Examiner's Answer, the examiner withdrew the rejection of2
claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In the Supplemental
Examiner's Answer, the examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Therefore, only the rejection of claims 1, 2,
and 5 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is before us on appeal.
3
Claims 1, 2, and 5 through 15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maddock in view of
Akase.2
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed October 7, 1996) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 19, mailed April 4, 1997) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' Brief (Paper No. 14, filed August 26, 1996) for
the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims
1, 2, 5 through 7, and 9 through 15 and affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 8.
All of the claims except claim 8 recite correcting the
threshold level based on the combustion state parameters. In
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
4
each claim, the phrase "combustion state parameter" is defined
in the first paragraph of the claim as "a difference between
revolution speed of the specific cylinder and revolution speed
of at least one of the other cylinders." Claim 8, on the
other hand, recites a means for correcting the threshold level
"by a value which is a function of said engine revolution
speed."
The examiner states (Final Rejection, page 3) that
"Maddock et al. suggest the limitations of claim 1, except for
correcting the threshold." Appellants likewise assert (Brief,
page 10) that Maddock "do[es] not make any provision for
correcting the threshold value." Maddock, however, discloses
in column 6, lines 14-17, that "the first threshold T1 is
empirically determined and, in the preferred embodiment, it is
equal to one-half the
magnitude of the deviation average DEVAVG for that engine
cycle." Thus, since DEVAVG is calculated and may change for
each engine cycle, and since the threshold level is one half
of DEVAVG, the threshold level likewise is calculated and may
change (or is updated) each engine cycle. Further, DEVAVG is
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
5
defined as "the average of the individual deviations DEV(i)"
(Maddock, column 5, lines 66-67), DEV(i) is a period deviation
"calculated for each engine cylinder in response to a
difference between the periods measured for a respective
cylinder" (Maddock, column 5, lines 8-11), and "[t]he measured
periods and engine speed are inversely related" (Maddock,
column 5, lines 17-18). In other words, DEVAVG is a function
of the engine speed for a given cycle, and, therefore, the
threshold is based on the engine speed for that cycle.
Changes in engine speed from engine cycle to engine cycle
therefore will result in modifications or corrections of the
threshold. Accordingly, claim 8 is met by Maddock, with the
application of Akase merely being cumulative. Therefore, we
will affirm the rejection of claim 8.
As to the remaining claims, the examiner states (Final
Rejection, page 3) that "Akase is an example of a reference
suggesting correcting a misfire threshold in response to RPM"
and that it would have been obvious "to apply this broad
teaching to Maddock et al. in order to gain well-known
advantages such as taught by the reference." The examiner
further explains (Final Rejection, pages 2-3) that:
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
6
Akase suggests changing the threshold as a function
(in response to) rpm and load (see the Abstract, for
instance). Given that this technique is known in
the art, it would have involved only routine skill
to change or correct the threshold used in a
Maddock-like system, because load and rpm are known
to affect the operation of any internal combustion
engine, and thereby any measurements . . . made of
that engine's operation.
Thus, the examiner apparently turns to Akase for correcting
the threshold in response to rpm and load. Although the
examiner fails to specifically identify the referenced
advantages to provide a motivation for changing or correcting
the threshold, since Maddock's threshold is updated each
engine cycle in response to the engine speed, no such teaching
is necessary.
The examiner comments (Answer, page 2) that Akase's
threshold adjustment can be described "as either 'basing a
threshold value on a look-up table which is indexed by engine
operating parameters such as load and RPM' or, equivalently,
as 'correcting the threshold value based on changes in those
parameters.'" The examiner concludes (Answer, page 3) that
"Akase DOES change the threshold used based on combustion
state parameters (such as RPM and load)." We agree that Akase
does change the threshold based on RPM and load, but we
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
7
disagree that Akase changes the threshold based on combustion
state parameters.
It appears that the examiner has viewed the phrase "combustion
state parameters" at the end of claim 1, for example, as any
engine parameter such as engine speed or load. However, as
indicated above, appellants clearly and specifically define
the phrase "combustion state parameter" in the claim as being
"a difference between revolution speed of the specific
cylinder and revolution speed of at least one of the other
cylinders" and not just any engine parameter. Maddock and
Akase each correct the threshold based on RPM, but neither
Maddock nor Akase discloses basing the change on the
combustion state parameters, as defined in appellants' claims.
Accordingly, the examiner has failed to address all of the
limitations of the claims. Consequently, we cannot sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 7, and 9 through 15.
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
8
CONCLUSION
In summary, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
1, 2, 5 through 7, and 9 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The decision of the
examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
9
vsh
Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
10
EVENSON, MCKEOWN, EDWARDS & LENAHAN
1200 G STREET NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20005