Ex Parte Kitano et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 30, 2008

10334064 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KAZUHIKO KITANO and TETSUROU HAMADA
____________

Appeal 2008-5670
Application 10/334,064
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: December 30, 2008
____________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and MICHAEL W.
O'NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kazuhiko Kitano and Tetsurou Hamada (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 2. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
Appeal 2008-5670
Application 10/334,064

2
The Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a control device for a
hybrid vehicle which controls the amount of regeneration during
regenerative operation of the motor when the vehicle decelerates.
Specification 1. When the vehicle is steered (turned) during deceleration,
Appellants’ controller adds a predetermined amount of regeneration,
depending on the steered angle of the front wheels, to the amount of
regeneration of the first motor connected to the front wheels while
subtracting the same amount from the regeneration of the second motor
connected to the rear wheels. Consequently, the braking force produced by
the rear wheels, which support relatively lower loads than the front wheels
when the vehicle turns, is reduced, thereby improving vehicle stability.
Futhermore, by increasing the regeneration of the motor connected to the
front wheels by the same amount that the regeneration of the motor
connected to the rear wheels is reduced, Appellants’ control device prevents
a decrease in the regenerated energy for the entire vehicle, thereby
permitting effective deceleration regeneration during turning. Specification
3-4 and 21.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed invention.
1. A control device for a hybrid vehicle
comprising:
front wheels which are steerable, and which
are connectable to at least one of an internal
combustion engine and a first motor via a
transmitting section;
rear wheels which are connected to a second
motor;
Appeal 2008-5670
Application 10/334,064

3
a regenerative operation control section
which enables regeneration of energy through the
regenerative operation of said first motor and
second motor when the vehicle decelerates; and
a regeneration amount control section which
operates so as to decrease the amount of
regeneration energy to be regenerated by said
second motor while increasing the amount of
regeneration energy to be regenerated by said first
motor so as to prevent decrease in the total amount
of regenerated energy in the entire vehicle
depending on the steered angle of said front wheels
when said hybrid vehicle is in a deceleration and
turning state.

The Rejection
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mikami (US 6,549,840
B1).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

OPINION
To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed
invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the
claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
Claim 1 requires a regeneration amount control section which
decreases the amount of regeneration energy to be regenerated by the second
Appeal 2008-5670
Application 10/334,064

4
(rear wheel) motor while increasing the amount of regeneration energy to be
regenerated by the first (front wheel) motor to prevent decrease in the total
regenerated energy for the vehicle depending on the steered angle of the
front wheels. Appellants argue that while Mikami mentions “steering
angle,” control of regeneration energy depending on the steered angle of the
front wheels as called for in claim 1 is not disclosed. Appeal Br. 14. To
account for the balanced increase in regeneration energy regenerated by the
front wheel motor and decrease in regeneration energy regenerated by the
rear wheel motor to prevent decrease in total regenerated energy for the
vehicle, as called for in claim 1, the Examiner relies on Mikami’s disclosure
at column 44, lines 30-48. Answer 7. The referenced text of Mikami reads
as follows:
The first-motor output increasing means 338
is operated when the operation of the RMG 70 is
limited by the second-motor operation limiting
means 336. The first-motor output increasing
means 338 is adapted to increase the drive torque
or regenerative torque of the MG 16 by an amount
corresponding to the amount of limitation of the
operation of the RMG 70, so that the total vehicle
drive torque or regenerative braking torque
remains unchanged irrespective of the limited
operation of the RMG 70. The second-motor
output reducing means 340 is operated when the
operation of the MG 16 is limited by the first-
motor operation limiting means 334. The second-
motor output reducing means 340 is adapted to
reduce the drive torque or regenerative torque of
the RMG 70 by an amount corresponding to the
amount of limitation of the operation of the MG
16, in order to maintain the desired front-rear
torque distribution ratio, that is, so that the front-
rear drive force distribution ratio or the front-rear
Appeal 2008-5670
Application 10/334,064

5
braking force distribution ratio is maintained at a
desired value.

Mikami, col. 44, ll. 30-48. This text discusses maintaining total vehicle
regenerative braking torque unchanged in the event that operation of the
second (rear) motor is limited by second-motor operation limiting means
336, depending on motor operating temperature, to prevent motor overload,
as discussed from column 43, line 47 to column 44, line 29. Mikami
achieves this by increasing first (front) motor regeneration torque by an
amount corresponding to the amount by which the second (rear) motor
regeneration torque is limited by the second-motor operation limiting means
336. While the Examiner appears to be correct that such operation of the
first-motor output increasing means 338 and second-motor operation
limiting means 336 may be executed during vehicle driving states that
include deceleration and turning states, in which both the first and second
motors are operating (Mikami, col. 31, ll. 40-52), the discussed operation is
performed in response to limitations on second (rear) motor operation to
prevent overload, not in response to or depending on the steered angle of the
front wheels, as called for in claim 1.
Mikami also broadly teaches controlling the front and rear motor drive
torques so as to sum to the driver’s desired drive torque, even in situations
where the torque on one set of wheels is reduced to reduce slipping
tendencies of those wheels, by increasing the torque on the other motor.
Mikami, col. 2, ll. 35-47, col. 6, ll. 17-25. Mikami further teaches operating
vehicle stability control to control the drive or braking force of one or more
wheels to prevent tendency for oversteering or understeering. Mikami, col.
19, ll. 57-67. Additionally, Mikami describes a brake control device that
Appeal 2008-5670
Application 10/334,064

6
determines, on the basis of the steering angle of the vehicle, whether the
vehicle has an excessive oversteering or understeering tendency during
steering. If excessive oversteering or understeering tendency is detected,
Mikami’s vehicle stability control is effected to eliminate such tendency by
activating appropriate one or ones of the wheel brakes and controlling the
throttle actuator 21. Mikami, col. 29, ll. 50-61. Mikami does not, however,
specifically teach decreasing the amount of regeneration of the second (rear)
motor and increasing the amount of regeneration of the first (front) motor
depending on steering angle, as called for in claim 1.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
For the above reasons, Appellants’ argument demonstrates that
Mikami does not disclose control of regeneration energy as called for in
claim 1 and thus does not anticipate claim 1 or claim 2, which depends from
claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is:

REVERSED

Appeal 2008-5670
Application 10/334,064

7
hh

ARENT FOX KINTNER PLOTKIN & KAHN, PLLC
Suite 400
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5339