Ex Parte Mitani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13062616 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
13/062,616 03/07/2011 Tateki Mitani Q123304 5951
23373 7590 11/17/2017
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
ZALESKAS, JOHNM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TATEKI MITANI, SATOSHINISHIKAWA, and
SHINGO IWAI
Appeal 2015-001530
Application 13/062,616
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 10, 12, 13, and 15—19, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 1—9 and 11 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-001530
Application 13/062,616
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claims are directed generally “to a fuel control system that
controls a fuel injection quantity of an internal combustion engine according
to a fuel property.” Spec. 11. Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
10. A fuel control system that controls a fuel injection quantity
of an internal combustion engine by controlling combustion of a
blended fuel of a base gasoline and alcohol at a theoretical air-
fuel ratio, the system comprising:
a refractive index sensor that measures a refractive index
of a blended fuel fed from a fuel tank to an internal combustion
engine;
an air flow sensor that measures an intake air quantity for
the internal combustion engine;
a memory that preserves data concerning a refractive
index/request injection quantity;
a reading device configured to read an output of the
refractive index sensor and determine a request injection quantity
per unit air quantity from the preserved data concerning the
refractive index/request injection quantity; and
a second reading device configured to read an output of
the air flow sensor and convert the request injection quantity to
a real request injection quantity, wherein
a volume of the fuel injection quantity is calculated using
only a measured refractive index value of the fuel using a data
table between a refractive index and a request injection quantity
volume (cc);
theoretical air-fuel ratio control is performed based on the
volume of the fuel injection quantity; and
a real request injection quantity is determined in a volume
based on a value of intake air quantity measurement.
2
Appeal 2015-001530
Application 13/062,616
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Nogi et al. (“Nogi”) US 5,140,965 Aug. 25, 1992
Takabayashi et al. (“Takabayashi”) US 2009/0034901 Al Feb. 5, 2009
Oosaki et al. (“Oosaki”) JP HI0-019775 Jan. 23, 1998
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 10, 12, 13, and 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nogi, Oosaki, and Takabayashi. Ans. 3.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nogi, Oosaki, and Takabayashi. Ans. 8.
ANALYSIS
As a whole, we agree with the Examiner’s characterization of
Appellants’ arguments as “attacking references individually.” Ans. 14;
cf Br. 9—12. The Examiner finds that each reference teaches all of the
claimed limitations except for the use of a real injection quantity volume,
and, thus, readily admits that neither reference alone meets the claim
language. The Examiner goes on, however, to conclude that the
combination of Nogi and Oosaki, as would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, properly suggests the missing element of using
volume instead of either mass or density. See e.g., Ans. 12—16. It does not
matter that neither reference alone teaches the claimed volume-based
calculation because the Examiner’s rejection is based upon the combination
of the teachings of these references.
3
Appeal 2015-001530
Application 13/062,616
First, the Examiner makes clear that the combined method “would be
reliant only upon the single input value of a refractive index measurement
provided by a single refractive index sensor.” Ans. 15. As the Examiner
further states, the claims require a calculation based upon volume and
although neither of the applied references teaches such a calculation, each
one performs a nearly identical method to the claims; Nogi does so based
upon mass and Oosaki does so based upon specific gravity, i.e., density. As
the Examiner correctly points out,
[g]iven the well-known relationship between mass, volume and
density (i.e.[,] volume = mass/density), PHOSITA would have
recognized that by correcting a fuel injection amount on the basis
of accessing both a stored fuel mass data point and a stored fuel
density data point, together, on the basis of a single refractive
index value, such a correction of the fuel injection amount would
also be equivalent to a volumetric correction of the fuel injection
amount....
as claimed. Ans. 15—16. Appellants focus only on the specific deficiencies
of each reference individually, which are explicitly acknowledged by the
Examiner, but do not provide a persuasive argument against the Examiner’s
conclusion that once given known, similar methods that utilize density and
mass, one of skill in the art would have known simply to utilize the two
methods in combination to perform the claimed method with an additional
calculation to determine volume.
Appellants’ main argument against this combination touts unclaimed
advantages of the method, namely “that it is possible to eliminate the need
for calculating a volume (cc) from a mass (g), thereby enabling injection
[that] is more precisely accurate and quickly determined.” Br. 12. As noted,
however, this advantage is not required by the claims and, therefore, does
not provide persuasive argument against the combination. Accordingly, we
4
Appeal 2015-001530
Application 13/062,616
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. Appellants provide no
argument against the rejection of the remaining claims and specifically state
that claims 12, 13, and 15—19 stand or fall with claim 10. Br. 9. As such,
we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 10, 12, 13, and 15—19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv)(2009).
AFFIRMED
5