Ex Parte Kristinsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

12977439 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/977,439 12/23/2010
28395 7590 08/23/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Johannes Geir Kristinsson
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.
83169201 9348
EXAMINER
HAN, CHARLES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHANNES GEIR KRISTINSSON, HAI YU, and
RY AN ABRAHAM MCGEE
Appeal 2014-008801 1,2
Application 12/977,439
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, their improvement "is related to electric
energy management in a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle." Spec. i-f 2.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Dec. 23,
2010), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Apr. 24, 2014), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 5, 2014), as well as the Examiner's Answer
("Answer," mailed June 20, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008801
Application 12/977,439
Independent claims 1, 7, and 17 are the only independent claims under
appeal. See Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce, below, independent
claims 1 and 7, with additional formatting added, as representative of the
appealed claims.
Id.
1. A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV),
compnsmg:
an internal combustion engine;
an electric motor;
an operator-actuated predetermined destination indicator
configured to designate a predetermined destination; and
a vehicle system control (VSC) electronically coupled to
the engine, motor, and indicator
wherein the VSC bases commands to the engine and motor
on both:
the predetermined destination indicator having been
actuated since a start of a current trip; and
data collected from prior trips to the predetermined
destination.
7. A method to operate a plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle (PHEV) having a battery, comprising:
determining whether an operator of the vehicle has
indicated an intended destination by actuating a destination
indicator coupled to the PHEV;
determining a most probable route to the indicated
destination based on prior trips to the indicated destination;
predicting how much energy is expected to be expended
en route to the intended destination based on the prior trips; and
operating the PHEV based on the predicted energy
expected to be expended so that the battery is mostly discharged
when the PHEV arrives at the indicated destination.
2
Appeal2014-008801
Application 12/977,439
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Saitou
(US 2007/0029121 Al, pub. Feb. 8, 2007);
claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saitou
and Qiuming Gong, Trip-Based Optimal Power Management of Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicles, 27 IEEE Transactions on Vehicle Technology 6,
3393-3401 (2008) (hereinafter "Gong");
claims 4--12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saitou and
De Vault (US 2009/0114463 Al, pub. May 7, 2009);
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saitou,
De Vault, and Krull (US 2007/0067101 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2007);
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saitou,
De Vault, and Kawauchi (US 2009/0228203 Al, pub. Sept. 10, 2009);
claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Saitou, De Vault, and Tertoolen (US 2009/0177383 Al, pub. July 9, 2009);
claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Saitou and Tertoolen;
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saitou,
Tertoolen, and Gong; and
claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saitou,
Tertoolen, and McClellan (US 2008/0255722 Al, pub. Oct. 16, 2008).
See Answer 3-17.
3
Appeal2014-008801
Application 12/977,439
ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection of claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, among other limitations, "a vehicle
system control (VSC) [that] bases commands to the engine and motor on
both ... the predetermined destination indicator having been actuated since
a start of a current trip[,] and data collected from prior trips to the
predetermined destination." Appeal Br., Claims App. We begin by properly
interpreting the claim phrase "data collected from prior trips to the
predetermined destination." Based on Appellants' Specification, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim phrase "data collected from
prior trips to the predetermined destination" is data from prior trips only to
the predetermined destination (i.e., straight home), as opposed to data from
prior trips to the predetermined destination included with data from trips to
other destinations. For example, Appellants' Specification describes that
"[a] drive-home button is provided in the dashboard of the car. The driver
presses this button as soon as s/he is heading straight home," and thereafter
describes the subsequent collection of data regarding the trip to the
predetermined destination (e.g., home). Spec. i-f 11.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error because Saitou
fails to disclose controlling the engine and motor based on data collected
from prior trips to the predetermined destination. See Appeal Br. 4--5; see
also Reply Br. 2-3. Based on our review, we determine that the Examiner
fails to establish, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that Saitou
discloses the claimed controlling. The Examiner references Saitou's
paragraphs 87-89 and Figures 4 and 5. See Answer 4, 19. These portions of
Saitou appear to disclose at most the use of (i.e., control based on) all
4
Appeal2014-008801
Application 12/977,439
collected data (that may or may not include data relating to the trip to the
predetermined destination), rather than data from prior trips only to a
predetermined destination.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of independent claim 1.
Obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3
As stated above, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 1, from which claims 2 and 3 depend. The Examiner does not
establish that Gong remedies the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3.
Obviousness rejection of claims 4-12
Claims 4-6
As stated above, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 1, from which claims 4---6 depend. The Examiner does not establish
that De Vault remedies the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also do not sustain
the rejection of claims 4---6.
Claims 7-12
Independent claim 7 recites, among other limitations, "determining
whether an operator of the vehicle has indicated an intended destination by
actuating a destination indicator coupled to the [vehicle]; and determining a
most probable route to the indicated destination based on prior trips to the
indicated destination." Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants argue the
rejection is in error because neither reference discloses determining a most
probable route to an indicated destination based on prior trips to the
indicated destination. See Appeal Br. 6-7. Based on our review, we
determine that the Examiner fails to establish, based on a preponderance of
5
Appeal2014-008801
Application 12/977,439
the evidence, that either reference teaches this limitation. The Examiner
references De Vault's paragraphs 74--76 and 78 as disclosing the limitation.
See Answer 8. We agree with Appellants, however, that the cited portions
of De Vault appear to be directed to predicting which recharging station a
vehicular operator may visit, rather than determining a most probably route
to an indicated destination. See Appeal Br. 6-7; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 7. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 8-12 depending from claim 7, inasmuch as the Examiner does not
remedy, in the dependent claims' rejection, the deficiency in the independent
claim's rejection.
Obviousness rejections ofclaims 13-16
As stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 12, from which claims 13-16 depend. The Examiner does not
establish that any other references remedies the rejection of claim 12. Thus,
we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 13-16.
Obviousness rejections of claims 17-20
Independent claim 17 recites, among other limitations, "a vehicle
system control (VSC) electronically coupled to the engine, motor, GPS, and
indicator wherein the VSC bases commands to the engine and motor on
whether a vehicle operator has actuated the home indicator and GPS data
collected during prior trips to home." Appeal Br., Claims App. The
Examiner finds that Saitou discloses this limitation. See Answer 14--15. For
reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to independent
claim 1, which recites the similar limitation "data collected from prior trips
6
Appeal2014-008801
Application 12/977,439
to the predetermined destination" (Appeal Br., Claims App.), we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 17.
Further, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 18-20
that depend from claim 17, inasmuch as the Examiner does not establish that
any other reference remedies the deficiency in the independent claim's
rejection.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness
rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
7