Ex Parte Kurz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14271598 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/271,598 05/07/2014
34044 7590 09/26/2018
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roland Kurz
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.
022862-2020-usoo 9839
EXAMINER
ZAKARIA, AKM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2868
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLAND KURZ and THOMAS HERGES
Appeal2017-006166
Application 14/271,598
Technology Center 2800
Before A VEL YN M. ROSS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4--11, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed May 7, 2014 ("Spec."),
the Final Office Action appealed from dated March 30, 2016 ("Final Act."),
the Appeal Brief filed August 31, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's
Answer dated January 12, 2017("Ans.") and the Reply Brief filed
February 27, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Robert Bosch GmbH, who is also the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006166
Application 14/271,598
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to detection of malfunctions in
electric drives, such as bending effects. Spec. ,r 6. The bending effect can
cause "bends" in the current flow characteristic and accordingly can lead to
an S-shaped or rather Z-shaped curve of the current flow characteristic. Id.
In particular, the subject matter of the invention provides a method for
detecting a malfunction in electric drives by generating a malfunction signal
based on the presence of two conditions-a current flow gradient and
gradient change falling outside the prescribed values-that must be fulfilled
before a malfunction is established, thus leading to more reliability. Id. ,r,r
17-20. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for detecting a malfunction in an electric drive
unit, the method comprising the following steps:
ascertaining a current flow characteristic of the electric
drive unit;
detecting a gradient change in the current flow
characteristic at a first point in time;
comparing the gradient change with a predefinable
gradient change range;
ascertaining a gradient in a current flow characteristic at a
second point in time;
comparing the gradient with a predefinable gradient range;
and
establishing a malfunction in the electric drive unit only if
both the gradient change is outside the predefinable gradient
change range and also the gradient is outside the gradient range,
and a time interval between the first point in time and the second
point in time exceeds a predefinable threshold value.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2017-006166
Application 14/271,598
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections to the pending
claims: 3
A. Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Shigihama. 4 Final Act. 5.
B. Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Shigihama in view of Barkan. 5
Id. at 9.
C. Claims 5, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Shigihama, Barkan, and further
in view of Pasuri. 6 Id. at 10.
D. Claim 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shigihama in view of Tang. 7 Id. at 11.
Appellant seeks our review of Rejections A-D. Appeal Br. 5.
Because our reason for reversing the rejection of independent claim 1
applies to the rejections of all remaining claims by virtue of dependency
from claim 1, we focus our discussion below on claim 1.
3 Appellant, in an amendment after final, cancelled claims 2, 3, 12, and 13
(Amendment after Final filed July 19, 2016) which was entered by the
Examiner. See Advisory Action dated July 19, 2016.
4 Shigihama et al., US 2002/0178791 Al, published December 5, 2002
("Shigihama").
5 Edward Barkan, US 2005/0092841 Al, published May 5, 2005 ("Barkan").
6 Pasuri et al., US 2011/0276279 Al, published November 10, 2011
("Pasuri").
7 Xiangyang Tang, US 2011/0303427 Al, published December 15, 2011
("Tang").
3
Appeal2017-006166
Application 14/271,598
OPINION
Rejection A -Anticipation (claim 1)
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Shigihama. Final
Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Shigihama teaches the method as claimed.
Id. ( citing Shigihama Figures 1, 6-9). The Examiner finds that Shigihama
ascertains a current flow (Id. (citing Fig. 9, curves D, E, and F)), ascertains a
gradient (Ans. 5, (citing Figs. 7 and 9)), detects a "a gradient change in the
current flow ( current change [Im-Io] in step s39 of figure 6 is being
monitored per unit increment of time [T + 1] or in step s49 within steps s4 7-
s55 in figures 7, 9 representing rate of current change or gradient change)"
(Id.), compares both the gradient and gradient change with a predefined
range (Id. at 5---6), and establishes a malfunction where "the gradient change
(steps 40-44, Im - lo> f2 > fl in figures 7,9) is outside the predefinable
gradient change range (thresholds fl or f2 in figure 9)." Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that "Shigihama does not disclose detecting a
gradient change in the current flow characteristic, which is a derivative of a
change in current flow as shown in Fig. 7 of Shigihama." Appeal Br. 6.
Rather, Appellant urges that "Shigihama is directed to detecting a load
current value Im and subtracting a load current initial value Io, which is then
compared to a large-leakage determination threshold fl." Id. And, while the
"plot of [the] load current versus time can be considered a gradient or
display of current change, ... [ t ]here clearly is no disclosure of also
determining or otherwise providing a gradient change of current in
Shigihama." Id. at 6-7. Further, Appellant contends that "there is no
disclosure of an additional gradient change in Shigihama, in addition to a
gradient" and "Shig[i]hama does not disclose establishing a malfunction
4
Appeal2017-006166
Application 14/271,598
'only if the gradient change is outside the gradient change range and also the
gradient is outside the gradient range."' Appeal Br. 7.
We determine that the Examiner failed to establish that Shigihama
teaches a "gradient change" or "comparing the gradient change with a
predefinable gradient change range" as required by the claims. We adopt the
Examiner's understanding of "gradient" to mean "a measure of the change
or steepness of some physical quantity over space or time" and "gradient
change" is understood to mean "change of gradient of physical quantity
measured as a rate or per unit [ofJ time." Ans. 5. Applying this
understanding we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's reliance on
Steps S31-S45 and Steps S47-S55 as supporting the disclosure of a gradient
change, instead simply represents a current value of "Im-Io over time and
repeat measurement represents a gradient when plotted over time on a
curve" but does not represent a "gradient change," i.e., a measure of the rate
of change of the gradient. Furthermore, the Examiner's statement (Ans. 5-
6) that "Shigihama discloses comparing ( steps 40-51, fcap 1 fl in
figures 7 ,9) the gradient change with a predefinable gradient change range
(fl to fcapl in figures 7,9)" and, therefore, describes a "compar[ison ofJ the
gradient change with a predefinable gradient change range" ( emphasis
added) as claimed is not supported by the record evidence.
Therefore, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection.
Because Rejections B-D are premised on the same erroneous factual
findings regarding Shigihama, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections.
5
Appeal2017-006166
Application 14/271,598
CONCLUSIONS
Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 6, 7, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Shigihama.
Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shigihama in
view of Barkan.
Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 5, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shigihama,
Barkan, and further in view of Pasuri.
Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shigihama in view of
Tang.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1, 4--11, 14, and 15 are
reversed.
REVERSED
6