Ex Parte Mukai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 2011

11475109 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte YOSHINOBU MUKAI, HIROAKI HORII,
and FUMIHIRO MORISHITA
____________________

Appeal 2010-001717
Application 11/475,1091
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-001717
Application 11/475,109

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing
was held on February 3, 2011.
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention concerns a rotation angle detection device for a
power steering apparatus that includes determination of whether an output
abnormality has occurred in the rotation angle detection unit. A signal
generating unit generates a sine wave signal and a cosine wave signal as a
rotary member is rotated. In accordance with the sine wave signal and cosine
wave signal, the rotation angle detection unit detects a rotation angle of a
rotary member. If the change in the sine wave signal or cosine wave signal
per unit time is beyond a predetermined range for more than a predetermined
time, the abnormality determining unit determines that an output
abnormality has occurred in the rotation angle detection unit (Spec. 3-4).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A rotation angle detection device comprising:
a signal generating unit which generates a sine wave signal and a
cosine wave signal as a rotary member is rotated;
a rotation angle detection unit which detects a rotation angle of the
rotary member, in accordance with the sine wave or the cosine wave signal;
an abnormal determining unit which determines whether an output
abnormality has occurred in the rotation angle detection unit based on a
change in the sine wave signal or the cosine wave signal per unit time.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Otake US 5,469,032 Nov. 21, 1995
Takagi US 6,810,986 B2 Nov. 2, 2004
Appeal 2010-001717
Application 11/475,109

3
Sato US 7,154,404 B2 Dec. 26, 2006
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sato in view of Otake.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sato in view of Otake and Takagi.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Feb. 2, 2009), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 26,
2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 30, 2009) for their
respective details.

ISSUE
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Otake does not determine whether an
abnormality has occurred based on the change in the sine wave signal or
cosine wave signal per unit time (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3-4).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue:
Does Otake teach or suggest determining whether an output
abnormality has occurred in the rotation angle detection unit based on a
change in the sine wave signal or the cosine wave signal per unit time?

FINDING OF FACT
The following Finding of Fact (FF) is shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Otake
1. Pulse observer 23 receives pulse signals a and b from zero-crossing
comparators 22a and 22b respectively. These comparators receive respective
sine wave and cosine wave signals from the resolver 15. If the resolver
Appeal 2010-001717
Application 11/475,109

4
signal line is disconnected or if the exciting circuit 16a malfunctions, the
signal output from the comparator(s) may contain no pulse. Then, it is
decided that the resolver signal line is disconnected, or that the exciting
circuit has malfunctioned, and the resolver disconnection detection signal at
the low (L) level is output to the main computer 19 (Otake col. 6, ll. 49-56).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”).

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-4
The Examiner concedes that Sato does not teach the abnormality
detecting unit as claimed (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds, however, that Otake
discloses a full cycle of sine and cosine waves which can be used to
Appeal 2010-001717
Application 11/475,109

5
determine the cycle time per the equation T=2π/ω, thus inherently meeting
the “per unit time” limitation of the claims (Ans. 11).
We find error in the Examiner’s characterization of the reference. In
Otake, pulse observer 23 (see Fig. 4) receives pulse signals a and b from
zero-crossing comparators 22a and 22b respectively. These comparators
receive respective sine wave and cosine wave signals from the resolver. If
the resolver signal line is disconnected or if the exciting circuit 16a
malfunctions, the signal output from the comparator(s) may contain no
pulse. Then, it is decided that the resolver signal line is disconnected, or that
the exciting circuit has malfunctioned, and the resolver disconnection
detection signal at the low (L) level is output to the main computer 19 (FF
1).
Otake thus determines an output abnormality in the rotation angle
detection unit based merely on the absence of a pulse output from
comparators 22a and 22b. Otake contains no teaching, however, of
determining the change per unit time of the sine wave signal, or the cosine
wave signal, or both, and determining an abnormality based on these values.
Because the Examiner admits that Sato does not teach the claimed
abnormality determining unit, and we find that Otake does not teach or
suggest the element, Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us that that the
Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1-4 are unpatentable over Sato in
view of Otake. Accordingly, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection.
CLAIM 5
We reversed supra the § 103 rejection of parent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Sato in view of Otake. We have reviewed Takagi, and
find that it does not remedy the deficiencies of Sato and Otake. Accordingly,
Appeal 2010-001717
Application 11/475,109

6
we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 5 for the reasons noted with
respect to claim 1, supra.

CONCLUSION
Otake does not teach or suggest determining whether an output
abnormality has occurred in the rotation angle detection unit based on a
change in the sine wave signal or the cosine wave signal per unit time.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc

ARENT FOX LLP
1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 400
WASHINGTON, DC 20036