Ex Parte Rayl

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13798351 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/798,351 03/13/2013
286 7590 08/22/2018
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
LEGAL STAFF
MAIL CODE 482-C22-A68
PO BOX 300
DETROIT, MI 48265-3000
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Allen B. Rayl
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.
P022593-US-NP 1172
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, JOSHUA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALLEN B. RAYL
Appeal2017-007251
Application 13/798,351
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--12, and 14--20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 GM Global Technology Operations LLC is the applicant and identified as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007251
Application 13/798,351
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention relates to cylinder deactivation control systems
in internal combustion engines. Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1, reproduced below with
italics added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A cylinder control system of a vehicle,
compnsmg:
a cylinder control module that:
selects one ofN predetermined cylinder activation/deactivation
patterns as a desired cylinder activation/deactivation pattern for cylinders of
an engine, wherein N is an integer greater than two, each of the N
predetermined cylinder activation/deactivation patterns including P
indicators for the next P cylinder events, each of the P indicators indicating
whether to activate or deactivate a corresponding cylinder, and Pis an
integer greater than a total number of cylinders of the engine;
activates opening of intake and exhaust valves of first ones of the
cylinders that are to be activated based on the desired cylinder
activation/deactivation pattern; and
deactivates opening of intake and exhaust valves of second ones of the
cylinders that are to be deactivated based on the desired cylinder
activation/deactivation pattern; and
a fuel control module that provides fuel to the first ones of the
cylinders and that disables fueling to the second ones of the cylinders,
wherein the cylinder control module further:
determines M possible ones of the N cylinder activation/deactivation
patterns, wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to one;
selectively compares portions of the M possible cylinder
activation/deactivation patterns, respectively, with a portion of the desired
cylinder activation/deactivation pattern; and
selectively updates the desired cylinder activation/deactivation
pattern to one of the M possible cylinder activation/deactivation patterns
based on the comparisons.
2
Appeal2017-007251
Application 13/798,351
REJECTIONS 2
1) Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 11, 12, 14--16, and 18 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Suhre (US 6,360,724 Bl,
issued Mar. 26, 2002) as evidenced by Schechter (US 5,377,631,
issued Jan. 3. 1995).
2) Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Suhre, and Surnilla (Us 2004/0206072 Al,
published Oct. 21, 2004).
3) Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Suhre and Winstead (US 2011/0107986 Al,
published May 12, 2011).
4) Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Suhre, Surnilla, and Winstead.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellant contends that Suhre does not anticipate independent claims
1 and 11 because
Suhre describes switching a desired firing pattern to a new
desired firing pattern in response to a difference between an actual
power provided by an engine and a desired power of the engine
being greater than a limit or tolerance.
Suhre, however, is silent as to any comparison of a portion of
the desired firing pattern with a portion of the new desired firing
2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as anticipated by Kinoshita (US 2009/0042458 Al, published Feb.
12, 2009). Ans. 8; Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2017-007251
Application 13/798,351
pattern. Suhre is also silent as to updating the desired firing pattern to
the new desired firing pattern based on such a comparison of a portion
of the desired firing pattern with a portion of the new desired
firing pattern.
Appeal Br. 9 ( citing Suhre 6:55-64).
The Examiner responds that the algorithm in Figure 5 of Suhre
"calculates the actual power output of the engine based on the portion, or
cycles elapsed since setting the desired firing pattern in functional block 52"
and if the actual power output is outside of a tolerable range, selects a
"possible cylinder activation/deactivation pattern[s] [that] produces a desired
power output in a tolerable range." Ans. 8. The Examiner asserts that
Figures 2 to 4 of Suhre disclose "the cumulative power outputs are
determined using the last Q indicators for the last Q events of the desired
pattern and the first Q indicators of the first Q events of the possible
patterns." Id. at 9. The Examiner directs us to further disclosure in Suhre
where the power output of the cylinder patterns in Figures 2 to 4 are
compared to the maximum power output. Id. (citing Suhre 5:50-6:15).
Based on this, the Examiner asserts that "Suhre teaches comparing the
portions of the M possible cylinder activation/deactivation patterns with a
portion of the desired cylinder activation/deactivation pattern by comparing
the power output produced by portions of the possible patterns with the
power output produced by the desired pattern." Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant submits that it is clear that Suhre
compares actual power to desired power not a portion of a presently used
pattern to a portion of another possible pattern. Reply Br. 3 ( citing Suhre
6:61---64). Further, according to Appellant, the description of the power
output of Figures 2 to 4 of Suhre refers to cumulative power output over
4
Appeal2017-007251
Application 13/798,351
time and "is silent ... as to any determination of a power output for the last
Q indicators for the last Q events of a pattern and a power output for the first
Q indicators of the first Q events of a pattern" and therefore does not meet
the claim limitation of comparing a portion of the presently used pattern and
another possible pattern. Id. at 4--5. For the following reasons, we do not
sustain the rejection.
Appellant's Specification provides that selection of a cylinder
deactivation pattern is "based on one or more factors, including, but not
limited to, engine speed, requested torque, a selected gear, air per cylinder
... residual exhaust per cylinder ... and respective cylinder identifications."
Spec. ,r 38; see also Fig. 3. In order to facilitate the transition between the
current cylinder activation/deactivation pattern and the next pattern, "the
pattern comparison module 316 may attempt to compare the last portion of
the desired cylinder activation/deactivation patterns 252 to respective first
portions of each of the candidate patterns to determine which of the
candidate patterns most closely resembles the desired" pattern. Id. ,r 53.
Suhre selects a new desired cylinder firing pattern by comparing
desired power to actual power and if the actual power is not within a
limitation, then calculating "a new desired firing pattern ... using the
proportional-integral differential PID) controller." Suhre 6:50-54, Fig. 5.
Thus, Suhre does not disclose "select[ion] of one ofN predetermined
cylinder activation/deactivation patterns," as required by claims 1 and 11.
Further, while we appreciate the Examiner's reference to Suhre's Figures 2
to 4 and the calculation of the cumulative power output of the various
cylinder activation/deactivation patterns shown in these Figures, we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not cited any portion of Suhre that
5
Appeal2017-007251
Application 13/798,351
discloses a cylinder control module that "selectively compares portions of"
cylinder activation/deactivation patterns" and "selectively updates the
cylinder activation/deactivation pattern to one of the M possible cylinder
activation/deactivation patterns based on the comparisons." Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 as anticipated by
Suhre. Claims 2, 4---6, and 8 depend from claim 1 and claims 12, 14--16, and
18 depend from claim 11. Appeal Br. 14--20 (Claims App.). We do not
sustain the rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons.
Rejections 2--4
Claims 7, 9, and 10 depend from claim 1 and claims 17, 19, and 20
depend from claim 11. Appeal Br. 16-21 (Claims App.). The Examiner's
reliance on additional disclosure from Surnilla and Winstead in these
rejections does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 11
discussed above. Final Act. 7-10. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 7, 9, 10, 17, 19, and 20 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--12, and 14--20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6