Ex Parte Luedtke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2019

12466467 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/466,467 05/15/2009
28395 7590 02/13/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel R. Luedtke
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.
81180415 5931
EXAMINER
MARC-COLEMAN, MARTHE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2019 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 DANIEL R. LUEDTKE
Appeal2017-006799
Application 12/466,467 1,2
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daniel R. Luedtke ("Appellant") seeks review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action
dated March 4, 2016, rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 16-18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rendered a prior decision on
appeal in this application on March 2, 2015 (in Appeal 2013-000912). We
have reviewed that decision and, to the extent relevant to the issues in the
present appeal, have taken that decision into account in the analysis below.
Appeal2017-006799
Application 12/466,467
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter relates to "controlling an electric
machine of a vehicle drivetrain ... to dampen drivetrain vibrations." Spec.,
Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below, with emphasis added:
1. A method for controlling an electric
machine of a vehicle drivetrain, the method
compnsmg:
modifying a torque command to the electric
machine in response to a difference between a
speed of the electric machine and a speed of a
drivetrain component other than the electric
machine exceeding a threshold that is based on a
compliance associated with the drivetrain to
dampen drivetrain vibrations.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 7, 8, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Zhao (US 7,024,290 B2, issued Apr. 4, 2006), Sugo
(US 7,434,647 B2, issued Oct. 14, 2008), and Slicker (US 4,766,967, issued
Aug. 30, 1988).
2. Claims 3---6, 10-13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Zhao, Sugo, Slicker, and Joe (US
2007/0056784 Al, published Mar. 15, 2007).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1- Claims 1, 7, 8, and 16
Appellant argues the patentability of independent claim 1 and states
that the remaining independent claims (8 and 16) are patentable for the same
2
Appeal2017-006799
Application 12/466,467
reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 3-5. For claim 1, the Examiner relied on
Zhao for certain limitations but stated that Zhao "fails to specifically
disclose the difference exceeding a threshold that is based on a compliance
associated with the drivetrain to dampen drivetrain vibrations." Final Act. 5.
The Examiner found, however, that Sugo "discloses ... the difference
exceeding a threshold." Id. (citing Sugo, 1:26-51). According to the
Examiner, the combination of Zhao/Sugo "does not particularly disclose the
threshold is based on a compliance associated with the drivetrain" but
Slicker "discloses the threshold is based on a compliance associated with the
drivetrain to dampen drivetrain vibration." Id. (citing Slicker, 3:25-52,
4:26-38, 1: 12-29, Figs. 1-3). The Examiner provided reasons to (1) modify
Zhao in view of Sugo (id.) and (2) further modify Zhao/Sugo in view of
Slicker (id. at 6).
Appellant asserts error in the Examiner's finding (similar to the
finding quoted above) that Slicker discloses "that the threshold is based on a
compliance associated with the drivetrain (the threshold is equivalent to the
characteristics see at least col. 3 lines 25-52, col. 4 lines 26-38 and Figs. 1-
3)." Appeal Br. 4 ( quoting Final Act. 3). Appellant argues that "Slicker
does not have a threshold" let alone "a threshold that is based on a
compliance associated with a drivetrain." Id. In support, Appellant
summarizes several disclosures from Slicker cited by the Examiner. Id. at
3--4 (overlapping paragraph); see also id. at 4--5 (discussing Slicker, Fig. 3).
In the Answer, the Examiner revises the finding as to Slicker, stating
that Slicker only discloses "compliance associated with [the] drivetrain"
(Ans. 9), rather than disclosing that "the threshold is based on a compliance
3
Appeal2017-006799
Application 12/466,467
associated with the drivetrain" (Final Act. 3, 5). In response to Appellant's
arguments summarized above, the Examiner states:
[T]he consequence of the control in the two references
(Zhao ... and Sugo ... ) is for the purpose to be in compliance
with the vibration. Therefore, inherently it is there, but the
examiner uses the Slicker reference for the compliance in order
to clarify the record. Sugo ... already discloses a threshold,
and the examiner mainly uses Slicker as a link to show the
compliance. While the examiner mainly uses Slicker for the
compliance, Slicker does teach a threshold which is equivalent
to the characteristics as mentioned in the final office action in
(see at least 3 lines 25--52, col. 4 lines 26--38 and Figs. 1-3).
Ans. 9.
As to Slicker, we agree with Appellant's summary of the teachings of
that reference. See Appeal Br. 3-5. We do not agree with the Examiner that
Slicker teaches the use of a "threshold" as that term is used in claim 1-i.e.,
a boundary value separating different outcomes or effects. See, e.g., Spec.,
8:3---6 ("As indicated at 48 [in Figure 4], it is determined whether the
difference in rotational speeds is greater than a threshold. If no, the strategy
returns to 42, 44. If yes, the strategy proceeds to 50." (emphasis added)); see
also Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992) (via
Credo Reference), https:// search.credoreference.com/ content/ entry/
apdst/threshold/0 (last visited Feb. 6, 2019) (Definition 2 (Electronics)-
"The lowest point or value at which an electronic effect is produced or an
indication is observed.").
That Slicker discloses the use of certain variables (termed
"characteristics" by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 9)) in the process of
"modify[ing] the torque command so as to reduce unstable, resonant
oscillatory effects in the drive train" (Slicker, 4:36-38) does not indicate the
4
Appeal2017-006799
Application 12/466,467
use of the recited "threshold." See Appeal Br. 5 (arguing that, in Slicker,
although "drivetrain wind-up due to compliance could be a reason why there
is a difference between measured and estimated output shaft speeds, this
does not mean that Slicker somehow uses a threshold that is based on
drivetrain compliance as part of the control strategy"), 4 (stating that Slicker
"has nothing to do with whether a threshold speed difference (that triggers
modifying a torque command to an electric machine) is based on a
compliance associated with a drivetrain").
Further, although we generally agree with the Examiner that Sugo
discloses the use of a "threshold" as construed, as acknowledged by the
Examiner, the identified "threshold" in Sugo is not "based on a compliance
with the drivetrain" as required. See Final Act. 5 ( stating only that Sugo
"discloses ... the difference exceeding a threshold"); Ans. 8 (stating only
that Sugo "discloses speeds difference exceeding a threshold value"); see
also Sugo, 1:26-51 ( disclosing comparing a detected "difference in
rotational speed between the front and rear propeller shaft" in a four-wheel
drive vehicle to a "first predetermined value").
And although we agree with the Examiner that Zhao relates to "using
torque control to mitigate or to eliminate unwanted oscillation signals in a
driveline of a motor vehicle" (Zhao, 4:49-51 ), the Examiner has not
adequately explained how the relied-upon teachings of Sugo (and/or Slicker)
would have been used to modify Zhao to arrive at the claimed invention,
including the use of "a threshold that is based on a compliance associated
with the drivetrain," as recited in claim 1. For example, contrary to the
Examiner's position, the Examiner has not adequately shown a "link" (Ans.
9) between the identified "threshold" in Sugo and the relied-upon teachings
5
Appeal2017-006799
Application 12/466,467
as to "compliance associated with the drivetrain" in Zhao and/or Slicker.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the rejection
of claim 7, which depends from claim 1.
As with claim 1, independent claims 8 and 16 recite "a threshold that
is based on a compliance associated with a drivetrain." Appeal Br., Claims
App. 2. For claims 8 and 16, the Examiner relies on the same deficient
findings and conclusions discussed above with regard to claim 1. Final Act.
5-7; Ans. 8-9. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 16.
Rejection 2 - Claims 3-6, 10---13, 17, and 18
Claims 3---6 depend from claim 1, claims 10-13 depend from claim 8,
and claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 16. Appeal Br., Claims App. 1-3.
The Examiner's added reliance on Joe does not remedy the deficiencies in
the rejection based on Zhao, Sugo, and Slicker, discussed above (see
Rejection 1 ). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 3-6, 10-13, 17, and 18.
DECISION
We reverse the decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 16-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6