Ex Parte Kuang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2017

11928055 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/928,055 10/30/2007 Ming Lang Kuang 81156790 6831
28395 7590 02/08/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER NOLAN, PETER D
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2017 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 MING LANG KUANG, FAZAL URRAHMAN SYED,
ANTHONY MARK PHILLIPS, DEEPA RAMASWAMY, and
BRANDON R. MASTERSON
Appeal 2015-0029381
Application 11/928,0552
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, AMEE A. SHAH, 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 final
rejection of claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Oct. 30,
2007), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 1, 2013), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 15, 2015), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final
Action,” mailed Mar. 27, 2013) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,”
mailed Nov. 20, 2014).
2 Appellants indicate that Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-002938
Application 11/928,055
According to Appellants, [t]he invention relates to a so-called ‘drive-
by wire’ control in an automotive vehicle powertrain.” Spec. 1,11. 9-10.
Claims 1, 3, 14, and 16 are the only independent claims. Appeal Br., Claims
App. We reproduce claim 1, below in the Analysis section of this Decision,
as representative of the claims.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 7, 8, and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art and Hrovat
(US 7,499,787 B2, iss. Mar. 3, 2009).
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, Hrovat, and Official
Notice.
Answer 2—5.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites the following:3
1. A method for controlling a vehicle powertrain
having a driver-operated vehicle accelerator pedal, comprising:
selecting a transfer function shaping parameter;
developing a second pedal position signal using
an accelerator pedal position signal and
a pedal position to pedal position signal transfer
function shaped by the selected shaping parameter; and
developing a vehicle wheel torque request based upon
a pre-calibrated functional relationship between
vehicle speed and vehicle wheel torque for the second pedal
position signal.
We add additional formatting to claim 1.
2
3
Appeal 2015-002938
Application 11/928,055
Appeal Br., Claims App. Thus, the claim requires that a second pedal
position signal, which is used to develop a vehicle wheel torque request
based upon a pre-calibrated functional relationship between vehicle speed
and vehicle wheel torque for the second pedal position signal, is developed
using i) an accelerator pedal position signal and ii) a pedal-position-to-pedal-
position-signal transfer function that has been shaped by a selected shaping
parameter.
In the Final Action (and the beginning portion of the Answer), the
Examiner finds that although Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art does not
disclose the shaping parameter as specifically claimed, Hrovat “teach[es] a
vehicle driver operated selector for selecting one of multiple shaping
parameters for the transfer function whereby a wheel torque request
following an accelerator pedal position change is modified in col. 7.” Final
Action 3^4; see also Answer 3. Further, although the Examiner does not
find that Hrovat’s shaping parameter is used to provide a second pedal
position signal and the Examiner does not find that the shaping parameter is
applied to a pedal-position-to-pedal-position-signal transfer function, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to apply Hrovat’s
shaping parameter to Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art’s pedal-position-to-
pedal-position-signal transfer function that provides a second pedal position
signal. More specifically, the Examiner determines
[i]t would have been obvious ... to use the teachings of Hrovat
... in [Appellants’] [AJdmitted [P]rior [A]rt because such
modification would only combine what is known and yield no
unexpected results. [Appellants’] [A]dmitted [P]rior [A]rt
already teaches using two maps to obtain a wheel torque value
based on a pedal position, Hrovat teaches adjusting a map that
relates pedal position to wheel torque to suit the driver’s needs.
3
Appeal 2015-002938
Application 11/928,055
Combining to [sic] two teachings would lead one of ordinary
skill to recognize that either one of the two maps of [Appellants’]
[A]dmitted [P]rior [A]rt can be modified to obtain the results
taught by Hrovat.
Final Action 4—5; see also Answer 4. We are persuaded by Appellants,
however, for the reasons discussed below, that the rejection is in error
because the Examiner does not provide a sufficient rationale “to modify the
prior art as asserted[,] absent impermissible use of hindsight based on
[Appellants’] disclosure.” Appeal Br. 6.
More specifically, based on our review of Hrovat’s column 7, Hrovat
does not appear to teach a shaping parameter that is used to shape a pedal-
position-to-pedal-position-signal transfer function, in order to develop a
second pedal position signal that is used to develop a wheel torque request.
For example, consistent with the Examiner’s finding above, Hrovat
discusses a “pedal-to-torque transfer function,” which appears to be similar
to the claimed “pre-calibrated functional relationship between vehicle speed
and vehicle wheel torque for the second pedal position signal” as recited in
claim 1. Hrovat col. 7,11. 40-43; Appeal Br., Claims App. Further, the
Examiner does not provide evidence or reasoning adequate to support the
conclusion that “[combining . . . [the references] would lead one of ordinary
skill to recognize that either one of the two maps of [Appellants’]
[A]dmitted [P]rior [A]rt can be modified to obtain the results taught by
Hrovat.” Answer 5.
In the Response to Arguments section of the Answer, the Examiner
finds that Hrovat’s Figure 5 discloses a shaping parameter. Answer 6.
Hrovat’s “F[igure] 5 is a graph illustrating relationships between pedal
actuation and torque.” Hrovat col. 2,11. 3^4 (emphasis omitted). The
4
Appeal 2015-002938
Application 11/928,055
Examiner does not appear to make any specific findings as to whether
Figure 5’s shaping parameter is or is not used to shape a pedal-position-to-
pedal-position-signal transfer function, in order to develop a second pedal
position signal, as required by claim 1. We determine that the Examiner
does not establish that Figure 5’s shaping parameter is the same as the
claimed shaping parameter, noting that “Figure 5 of Hrovat. . . ‘shows an
example relationship between pedal position and a request torque,” and
agree with Appellants that what is shown in Figure 5 “is not a pedal position
to pedal position signal transfer function as disclosed and claimed by”
Appellants. Reply Br. 2, citing Hrovat col. 5,11. 27—28 (emphases omitted).
The balance of the Response to Arguments section of the Examiner’s
Answer includes additional findings and conclusions by the Examiner to
support the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that it would have been obvious
to use Hrovat’s shaping parameter to shape a pedal-position-to-pedal-
position-signal transfer function, in order to develop a second pedal position
signal that is used to develop a wheel torque request. Answer 6—7.
However, the Examiner does not provide evidence or reasoning adequate to
support the conclusion that “[cjhoosing [to apply Hrovat’s shaping
parameter to] one map or the other [taught by Appellants’ Admitted Prior
Art] is routine in the art and the advantages of each choice would be clearly
obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made.” Id.
at 7. Further, the Examiner’s determination that
[t]he very simple motivation to combine the two pieces of prior
art is that adding the features of Hrovat to [Appellants’ Admitted
Prior Art] would provide the safety features and driving
performance improvements discussed throughout Hrovat. For
example, column 7, lines 33[—]42, discuss adjusting the pedal to
road conditions and preventing wheel spin on icy hills; or on
5
Appeal 2015-002938
Application 11/928,055
column 1, lines 7[—]8, where the vehicle becomes stuck in snow
or mud,
id., is too general — it discusses why one would want to adjust the pedal, but
does not adequately explain why one would use a transfer function to adjust
the pedal. Thus, the reasoning is inadequate to support a determination that
it would have been obvious to apply a shaping parameter specifically to a
pedal-position-to-pedal-position-signal transfer function, which is used to
develop a second pedal position signal, as claimed.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Inasmuch as each of the remaining claims depends from claim 1, or
is an independent claim that recites similar recitations as those described
above, and because the Examiner does not demonstrate how any other
reference remedies the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1 described
above, we do not sustain any rejection of any claim. Appeal Br., Claims
App.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—17.
REVERSED
6