Ex Parte KOSAKA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2018

13941883 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/941,883 07/15/2013
32294 7590 08/27/2018
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.
059278.00068 7253
EXAMINER
LAGUARDA,GONZALO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2018 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 SHIN0ZAKI 1
Appeal2017-011070
Application 13/941,883
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 9-20. See Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest (see Appeal
Br. 3) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2017-011070
Application 13/941,883
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A scavenged gas amount calculation device for an
internal combustion engine in which a valve overlap time
period of an intake valve and an exhaust valve of a cylinder is
changed by changing valve timing of at least one of the intake
valve and the exhaust valve, comprising:
intake pressure parameter-obtaining means for obtaining
an intake pressure parameter indicative of an intake pressure
which is a pressure within an intake passage of the engine;
exhaust pressure parameter-obtaining means for
obtaining an exhaust pressure parameter indicative of an
exhaust pressure which is a pressure within an exhaust passage
of the engine;
time period parameter-obtaining means for obtaining a
time period parameter indicative of a length of the valve
overlap time period; and
scavenged gas amount-calculating means for calculating
a scavenged gas amount which is an amount of gases scavenged
from within the cylinder of the engine into the exhaust passage
when the intake pressure is higher than the exhaust pressure
during the valve overlap time period, according to the intake
pressure parameter, the exhaust pressure parameter, and the
time period parameter,
wherein the scavenged gas amount is used to change the
valve timing of at least one of the intake valve and the exhaust
valve,
wherein said exhaust pressure parameter-obtaining means
includes minimum exhaust pressure-calculating means for
calculating, as the exhaust pressure parameter, a minimum
exhaust pressure which is a minimum value of the exhaust
pressure during the valve overlap time period, according to a
value indicative of an operating condition of the engine, and
wherein said scavenged gas amount-calculating means
includes scavenged gas production degree parameter-
calculating means for calculating a scavenged gas production
degree parameter indicative of a degree of production of the
2
Appeal2017-011070
Application 13/941,883
scavenged gases during the valve overlap time period,
according to the time period parameter, and
wherein the scavenged gas amount is calculated
according to the scavenged gas production degree parameter,
the intake pressure parameter, and the minimum exhaust
pressure.
Appeal Br. 34--35 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Koseki (US 2004/0139949 Al, pub. July 22, 2004) or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Koseki.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Koseki discloses a scavenged gas calculation
device as recited in claim 1 including intake and exhaust pressure parameter-
obtaining means (intake pressure sensor 10 and exhaust pressure sensor 11
respectively) and a scavenged gas amount-calculating means. Final Act. 11.
The Examiner also finds that Koseki discloses a minimum exhaust pressure-
calculating means for calculating a minimum value of the exhaust pressure
during the valve overlap time period. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds
that "[t]he minimum is measured and used in the calculations that the
reference performs." Id. "As a result of continual sensing there will, at
some point, be a sensing of the minimum exhaust pressure which will be
used in the ratio of intake to exhaust pressure to determine the flow of air
during that moment in the valve overlap period." Ans. 3. Alternatively, the
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to calculate the minimum
as the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable involving
only routine skill in the art. Id. at 12.
3
Appeal2017-011070
Application 13/941,883
Even if Koseki' s sensing of exhaust pressures measures a minimum
exhaust pressure, at some point, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 11; Ans.
3), claim 1 requires a "minimum exhaust pressure-calculating means for
calculating, as the exhaust pressure parameter, a minimum exhaust pressure
which is a minimum value of the exhaust pressure during the valve overlap
time period." Appeal Br. 35 (Claims App.) ( emphasis added).
Appellant discloses that "the minimum exhaust pressure PexMIN
(exhaust pressure parameter) is an estimated minimum value of the exhaust
pressure Pex during the valve overlap time period, and is calculated by a
method, described hereinafter." Spec. 26 (emphasis added). Appellant then
discloses that the minimum exhaust pressure PexMIN is calculated as the
difference between the average exhaust pressure PexA ve and the minimum
amplitude DPexMIN, which are map values (PexAve_map, PexMIN_map)
in Figure 10. Id. at 31, 36.
To the extent the Examiner treats a sensed value of exhaust pressure
as a calculated exhaust pressure, such finding is an unreasonably broad
interpretation of claim 1 in light of the Specification as discussed above in
which Appellant discloses equations and graphs for calculating minimum
exhaust pressure. The Examiner recognizes that this limitation is a means
plus function limitation that includes corresponding structure described in
the Specification and equivalents that achieve the claimed function. Final
Act. 5. Indeed, Appellant discloses that any suitable method may be used to
calculate the minimum value of the exhaust pressure during a valve overlap
time period according to a value indicative of an operating condition of the
engine, e.g., direct calculation "by map search according to ... [a] value
indicative of the operating condition of the engine." Spec. 40.
4
Appeal2017-011070
Application 13/941,883
The Examiner has not identified any corresponding structure in the
Specification or equivalent structures that correspond to Koseki' s exhaust
pressure sensor being the claimed minimum exhaust pressure-calculating
means. Instead, the Specification discloses that exhaust pressure sensor 34
"detects a pressure Pex within the exhaust passage 9 ... and delivers a
signal indicative of the detected exhaust pressure Pex to the ECU 2." Spec.
19 ( emphasis added). We find no disclosure in the Specification of exhaust
pressure sensor 34 corresponding to the claimed minimum exhaust pressure-
calculating means or providing an equivalent means. To the contrary, the
Specification discloses that minimum exhaust pressure PexMIN "is highly
correlated with the scavenged gas amount during the valve overlap time
period" (id. at 35), so the calculated PexMIN value "makes it possible to
improve the calculation accuracy of the scavenged gas amount" (id.).
The Specification touts its use of a calculated PexMIN as "reduc[ing]
computational load compared with the case in which the exhaust pressure
Pex is sampled successively at a very short sampling repetition period and
the minimum exhaust pressure PexMIN is calculated based on the results of
the sampling." Id. at 36. Thus, the Specification distinguishes the claimed
minimum exhaust pressure-calculating means from methods that sample the
exhaust pressure and use those values in other calculations, as in Koseki.
Nor has the Examiner explained sufficiently where Koseki discloses
calculating the scavenged gas amount according to the minimum exhaust
pressure that is calculated by the exhaust pressure-calculating means as
claimed. Appeal Br. 9-11. Appellant points out that paragraphs 52 and 82
of Koseki, cited by the Examiner, describe exhaust pressure sensor 11 and
pressure ratios compared to minimum choking-phenomenon values. Id.
5
Appeal2017-011070
Application 13/941,883
We agree with Appellant that Koseki' s calculation of a pressure ratio
that is compared to a minimum choking-phenomenon decision threshold
value SLCHOKEL does not calculate a minimum exhaust pressure value, or
to use a minimum exhaust pressure value to calculate a scavenged gas value.
Nor has the Examiner explained how paragraphs 52 and 82 of Koseki teach
to calculate a scavenged gas amount from a minimum exhaust pressure. See
id.; Final Act. 11. A finding that "continual sensing during this time period
would ultimately sense a minimum pressure" and the "pressure difference
determines the direction of flow from intake into the exhaust which causes
scavenged gas to increase" (Ans. 3) does not establish that a calculated
minimum exhaust pressure value is used to calculate a scavenged amount.
Finding that "the reference does not expressly state that a minimum
[ exhaust pressure value] is used," the Examiner reasons that Koseki teaches
"pressure is a result effective variable ( drives the flow between the intake
and exhaust) which justifies the use of obviousness in saying that one of
ordinary skill in the art could determine to use this value" by discovering an
optimum value of this result effective variable. Ans. 3; Final Act. 12.
The Examiner is correct that Koseki teaches that a pressure difference
between the intake and exhaust ports during an open valve overlap period is
related to gas flow from one port to the other. Koseki ,r,r 6, 8. Final Act. 11;
Ans. 3. However, the Examiner has not explained where Koseki recognizes
exhaust pressure itself ( versus the pressure difference between intake and
exhaust ports) as a variable that affects the scavenged gas amount such that a
skilled artisan would have experimented with different exhaust pressures to
identify the minimum exhaust pressure as the optimal exhaust pressure value
for calculating the scavenged gas amount. Reply Br. 4--6.
6
Appeal2017-011070
Application 13/941,883
Instead, Koseki calculates the internal exhaust gas recirculation
amount by adding the valve overlap period blow-back gas amount to the
exhaust valve closure timing in-cylinder residual gas amount. Koseki ,r,r 7,
8. Koseki also defines the valve overlap period blow-back gas amount as
the quantity of gas that flows between the intake and exhaust ports via the
combustion chamber when the intake and exhaust valves are open together.
However, this blow-back gas amount is "based on the engine speed,
the valve overlap period integrated effective area, and the supercharging-
and-choking phenomena decision result regarding the presence or absence of
the supercharging phenomenon, and the presence or absence of the choking
phenomenon." Id. ,r 8. Thus, even if scavenged gas results from a pressure
differential between intake and exhaust ports, Koseki does not calculate the
scavenged gas amount from a minimum value of the exhaust pressure, as
claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claims
3-7 and 9-20 which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-20.
REVERSED
7