Ex Parte Kosaka et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 18, 201813909850 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/909,850 06/04/2013 32294 7590 04/20/2018 Squire PB (NV A/DC Office) 8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE 14THFLOOR VIENNA, VA 22182-6212 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Y osuke KOS AKA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 059278.00084 1029 EXAMINER LAGUARDA,GONZALO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/20/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): IPGENERAL TYC@SQUIREpb.COM SONIA.WHITNEY@SQUIREpb.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOSUKE KOSAKA and KOICHIRO SHINOZAKI Appeal2017-001704 Application 13/909,850 1 Technology Center 3700 Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, KEN B. BARRETT, and ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges. KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-8.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the applicant, as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claim 9 was canceled. See Appeal Br. 19, Claims App. Appeal2017-001704 Application 13/909,850 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to "an internal EGR amount calculation device for an internal combustion engine." Spec. 1, 11. 5---6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An internal EGR amount calculation device for an internal combustion engine, in which, by changing a valve timing of at least one of an intake valve and an exhaust valve, a valve overlap period is changed, and in accordance with the change of the valve overlap period, an internal EGR amount, which is an amount of gas remaining in a cylinder, is changed, comprising: blow back gas amount-calculating means for calculating a blow back gas amount, which is an amount of gas which once flowed out of the cylinder into at least one of an intake system and an exhaust system, and thereafter, flows into the cylinder agam; overlap center position-calculating means for calculating one of a crank angle position in the center between a starting point and an ending point of the valve overlap period and a crank angle position near the crank angle position in the center, as an overlap center position, wherein the overlap center position- calculating means calculates the overlap center position based on changes in the timing of at least one of the intake valve and the exhaust valve which causes the overlap center position to shift; corrected blow back gas amount-calculating means for calculating a corrected blow back gas amount by correcting the calculated blow back gas amount according to the calculated overlap center position; and internal EGR amount-calculating means for calculating the internal EGR amount according to the calculated corrected blow back gas amount, wherein the internal EGR amount is used to change the valve timing of at least one of the intake valve and the exhaust valve. 2 Appeal2017-001704 Application 13/909,850 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: I. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Koseki (US 2004/0139949 Al, published July 22, 2004). II. Claims 2 and 4--8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Koseki OPINION Rejection I-The rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 USC§ 102(b) Claim 1 Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, an "overlap center position- calculating means ... [that] calculates the overlap center position based on changes in the timing of at least one of the intake valve and the exhaust valve which causes the overlap center position to shift." Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Koseki's Paragraphs 2, 52, 65, 69, and Figures 19 and 20 disclose that Koseki's internal EGR amount calculation device includes an overlap center position-calculating means as claimed. Final Act. 8-10. The Examiner explains that "integrating over the overlap period, equivalently considers ... [the overlap center position] in its calculation of blowback gas." Ans. 2. According to the Examiner, as "integrating is a way to include the effect of all the points over a period[,] 3 Appeal2017-001704 Application 13/909,850 the center position is ultimately considered and so Koseki performs equivalent calculations that will yield equivalent results." Id. at 3. Appellants argue that "Koseki fails to disclose or suggest calculating the overlap center position based on changes in the timing of at least one of the intake valve and the exhaust valve." Appeal Br. 7. Further, Appellants argue that "taking into account the [valve] overlap center position based on changes in the timing of ... the intake valve and the exhaust valve improves the accuracy of the internal EGR amount calculation ... while the integration of the valve overlap period ... is explicitly different." Id. at 8, Reply Br. 5. Appellants point to their Figures 8 and 10 to show a shift in the valve overlap center position. Appellants maintain that the integration of a valve overlap period would produce a different result than determination of a position because integration calculates an area. Reply Br. 5. Moreover, Appellants argue that the integration taught by Koseki does not account for a "shift in the overlap center position" (id.) and is thus not the same as Appellants' overlap center position-calculating means. Like Appellants, we do not see that integration of an overlap valve period is the same as calculating an overlap center position, nor do we see that Koseki teaches the claimed "overlap center position-calculating means calculates the overlap center position based on changes in the timing of at least one of the intake valve and the exhaust valve which causes the overlap center position to shift." Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. As Appellants correctly point out, "Koseki fails to disclose or suggest a method that is capable of detecting this shift in the overlap center position recited in claim 1, and shown in Figures 8 and 10. The integration disclosed in Koseki merely describes calculating an integrated value of the smaller valve 4 Appeal2017-001704 Application 13/909,850 opening area." Id. at 8. Comparing Appellants' Figures 8 and 10 is informative to understanding the shift in the overlap center position. Below is a copy of Appellants' Figure 8A, as annotated by the Board, showing a graphical representation of the positions of the intake and exhaust valves and the overlap center position. F ! G. 8A LARGE EXHAUST VALVE VALVE LIFT Figure 8A, as annotated by the Board, is a "diagram showing ... an overlap center position." Spec. 7. For comparison, a copy of Appellants' Figure 1 OA, as annotated by the Board, is reproduced below showing a graphical representation of the positions of the intake and exhaust valves and the shifted overlap center position. 5 Appeal2017-001704 Application 13/909,850 F I G, 1 0 A LARGEt EXHAUST VALVE i.----- J ,.,.---,-- ' VALVE LI FT Figure 10 A, as annotated by the Board, is a diagram showing ... the [shifted] overlap center position." Id. at 8 In contrast, Koseki's Figure 20 shows an integrated area that although includes the valve overlap center position, it does not show its shift. A copy ofKoseki's Figure 20 is shown below: OPENtNG AREA EXHAUST OF EACH OF VALVE INTAKE AND EXHAUST VALVES CRANK ANGLE tNTAKE VALVE Koseki's Figure 20 shows the area obtained by integration of the intake and exhaust valve curves. The Examiner opines that Koseki discloses a calculating device that integrates the valve overlap period from the start of the overlap period to the 6 Appeal2017-001704 Application 13/909,850 end of the overlap period and, thus, because it will "include the effect of all the points over a period the center position is ultimately considered." Ans. 3. In other words, according to the Examiner, Koseki calculates all of the points in the overlap period including the overlap center position. However, the Examiner has not directed our attention to disclosure in Koseki that would anticipate calculating the position shift of the valve overlap center position based on changes in valve timing. As Appellants point out, and correctly so, the areas under the curves during the valve overlap periods in their Figures 8A and 1 OA are almost the same; however, "the overlap center position is explicitly different based on changes in the timing of at least one of the intake valve and the exhaust valve." Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly, it is for these reasons that we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Koseki. Claim 3 Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br., Claims App. 17. The Examiner relies upon the same reasoning as advanced in the rejection made with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 10. For the reasons discussed supra, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 3. Rejection II-The rejection of claims 2 and 4-8 under 35 USC§ 102(b) or in the alternative §103(a) Claims 2 and 4--8 Claims 2 and 4--8 depend from claim 1, either directly or indirectly. Appeal Br., Claims App. 17-19. The Examiner relies upon the Koseki as 7 Appeal2017-001704 Application 13/909,850 anticipating claim 1 for the rejection of claims 2, and 4--8. Id. at 10-13. For the reasons discussed supra, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 2 and 4--8 as anticipated by Koseki. Furthermore, the Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 4--8 as being unpatentable over Koseki. Id. However, the Examiner's rejection does not address the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1 discussed supra. Accordingly, the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 4--8 is likewise not sustained. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 2 and 4--8 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 is reversed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation