Ex Parte MurakamiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 201613561246 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/561,246 07/30/2012 9629 7590 10/04/2016 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) 1111 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20004 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hideyuki MURAKAMI 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. 069401-5030-USOl 1056 EXAMINER CHEN, SHELLEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2016 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): patents@morganlewis.com karen.catalano@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIDEYUKI MURAKAMI Appeal2014-003983 Application 13/561,246 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEivIENT OF THE CASE Hideyuki Murakami (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mukai (US 2004/0083822 Al; pub. May 6, 2004) and Sugitani (US 2004/0256171 Al; pub. Dec. 23, 2004). Claim 6 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-003983 Application 13/561,246 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter "relates to an electric power steering apparatus, a control method thereof and a computer readable medium storing a program." Spec. para. 3, Figs. 4, 6. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. An electric power steering apparatus, comprising: a steering torque detector configured to detect steering torque of a steering wheel; an electric motor configured to apply steering assist force to the steering wheel; a current detector configured to detect an actual current actually supplied to the electric motor; a target current setting unit configured to set a target current to be supplied to the electric motor, on the basis of the steering torque detected by the steering torque detector; a feedback controller configured to perform feedback control such that the target current set by the target current setting unit and the actual current detected by the current detector coincide with each other; and a feedforward controller configured to perform feedforward control for increasing the actual current detected by the current detector in response to the target current increasing, the feedforward controller including a frequency compensator configured to provide a smaller amount of increase in the actual current as a frequency of a variation in the target current is lower, and a smaller amount of increase in the actual current as a frequency of a variation in the target current is higher. ANALYSIS Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 1, 7, and 8. See Br. 7-10. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 7 and 8 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 2 Appeal2014-003983 Application 13/561,246 Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a feedforward controller "including a frequency compensator configured to provide a smaller amount of increase in the actual current as a frequency of a variation in the target current is lower, and a smaller amount of increase in the actual current as a frequency of a variation in the target current is higher." Br. 12, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Mukai discloses claim 1 substantially as claimed except for the frequency compensator. See Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner relies on Sugitani for the frequency compensator. Id. at 4 (citing Sugitani, Abstract, paras. 13, 19, 57, 59, 66, 67, Fig. 7, claim 5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify Mukai to use the frequency compensator, as taught by Sugitani, in order to suppress adverse influence on the stationary characteristics of the electric motor, with predictable results." Id. Appellant contends that "Sugitani adjusts the target current based on variation in the actual current. This directly contradicts the claimed subject matter in which the actual current is adjusted based on variation in the target current." Br. 8. In response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner clarifies that [T]he limitation has already been taught by the primary reference Mukai (figs 2-3: control section 17 takes tar~et current R as input, and uses the feedforward control section 21 to adjust the actual current to the motor 10, P37-38, etc). Secondary reference Sugitani is only relied upon to teach the specific feedforward gain characteristic (as shown in figure 7). Thus the modification of Mukai in view of Sugitani would replace the feedforward characteristic Kf performed by the 3 Appeal2014-003983 Application 13/561,246 feedforward control section 21 of Mukai with the feedforward characteristic of Sugitani as shown in figure 7 of Sugitani. Ans. 3--4. Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error. Appellant contends that [in] the Advisory Action [, the Examiner] asserts that[] if the frequency compensator [of Sugitani] depends on the actual current, then it also must depend on the target current. ... If, as the [Examiner] suggests, the current supplied to the motor depended on the detected value (actual current), the control to bring the actual current in accord with the target current would be delayed; accordingly, the effect of the feedforward control would be lost. Br. 10. Appellant's argument is not persuasive because it amounts to unsupported attorney argument, and thus is entitled to little, if any, weight. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight). Further, as discussed above, in the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that "adjusting the actual current based on the target current [is] taught by the primary reference Mukai." Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's determination that applying the frequency compensator technique of Sugitani to the apparatus of Mukai would result in the claimed subject matter. Appellant further contends that Sugitani fails to disclose "[a] frequency compensator configured to provide ... a smaller amount of increase in the actual current as a frequency of a variation in the target current is higher." Br. 9. According to Appellant, "Sugitani teaches that 'the FF gain Gff is made large when the operating frequency is high."' Id. (citing Sugitani, para. 67). Appellant contends that the Examiner "refers to 4 Appeal2014-003983 Application 13/561,246 the right side of FIG. 7 of Sugitani. However, the specification [of Sugitani] appears to conflict with the drawing, and Appellant respectfully submits that, at best, this renders the disclosure of Sugitani indefinite and nonenabled." Br. 9. In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies his position regarding Figure 7 of Sugitani. According to the Examiner, When Sugitani states that "the FF gain Gff is made large when the operating frequency is high", he is clearly referring to the left/middle portion of the graph [of Figure 7]. Notice how the FF Gain Gff starts small when the operating frequency is low and is then made large when the operating frequency is high (on left/middle portion of graph, in agreement with the cited passage), and then made small again as claimed when the operating frequency is even higher (on right portion of graph). The right portion of figure 7 [of Sugitani] clearly shows the claimed "smaller amount of increase in the actual current [FF Gain GffJ as a frequency of a variation [operating frequency] in the target current is higher." Ans. 5---6; see also id. at 7. The Examiner concludes that [T]he cited passage of Sugitani does not contradict the claimed limitation, as suggested by the [Appellant], because the passage and the limitation refer to different portions of the graph as shown clearly in figure 7. The passage describes the left/middle portion of the graph, while the limitation describes the right portion of the graph. Id. at 6. In this case, Appellant offers only attorney argument regarding Sugitani' s Specification appearing to conflict with its own Figure 7. Prior art references are presumed enabled. In re Ant or Media Corp., 689 F .3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Further, Appellant does not persuasively explain why the Examiner's interpretation of Figure 7 of Sugitani is unreasonable or incorrect. As such, Appellant does not apprise us of 5 Appeal2014-003983 Application 13/561,246 Examiner error. Appellant contends that "[in the] Advisory Action[, the Examiner] asserts that tracking the target current is the same as tracking the claimed actual current." Br. 9. In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that "[t]he previous Advisory Action merely suggested that one necessarily follows the other, not that they are the same." Ans. 5. For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner's findings as to the teachings of the prior art and the Examiner's determination that the proposed modification of the apparatus of Mukai with the teaching of Sugitani would result in the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Mukai and Sugitani. We further sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 8, which fall with claim 1. As for dependent claims 2-5, these claims are not separately argued by Appellant. See Br. 10. Consequently, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-5 as unpatentable over Mukai and Sugitani. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over Mukai and Sugitani. 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). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation