Ex Parte Kosaka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2018

13909850 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018)

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