Ex Parte Seel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13130500 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
13/130,500 08/26/2011 Andreas Seel BOSC.P6962US/11602986 7935
24972 7590 08/02/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
GREENE, DANIEL LAWSON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS SEEL
Appeal 2016-002144
Application 13/130,500
Technology Center 3600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 11—13 and 16—37, which are all of the pending
claims.1,2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 1—10, 14, and 15 are canceled. (App. Br., Claims App’x 1.)
Appeal 2016-002144
Application 13/130,500
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellant, “[t]he present invention relates to regulating
rotational speed in a hybrid drive.” (Spec. 1.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 11 and 27 are independent. Claim 11, reproduced below with
the disputed limitation italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
11. A method for regulating rotational speed in a hybrid drive
of a vehicle having a first drive source and a second drive source,
the method comprising:
computing, by a control unit, a rotational speed variable
as a function of (a) a rotational speed of the first drive source
and (b) a rotational speed of the second drive source, wherein
the rotational speed variable is an arithmetic or weighted mean
of the rotational speed of the first drive source and the rotational
speed of the second drive source; and
regulating the rotational speed of the first drive source or
the rotational speed of the second drive source based on the
rotational speed variable in order to reduce oscillation.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Monden
Fujisawa et al.
(“Fujisawa”)
Nakashima
US 5,031,597 July 16, 1991
US 6,175,785 B1 Jan. 16,2001
US 2001/0020789 Al Sept. 13, 2001
2
Appeal 2016-002144
Application 13/130,500
Rejections
Claims 11—13, 16—24 and 26—37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujisawa and Monden.3
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujisawa, Monden, and Nakashima.
Issue4
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Fujisawa and
Monden teaches or suggests
computing, by a control unit, a rotational speed variable as a
function of (a) a rotational speed of the first drive source and (b)
a rotational speed of the second drive source, wherein the
rotational speed variable is an arithmetic or weighted mean of the
rotational speed of the first drive source and the rotational speed
of the second drive source[,]
as recited in independent claim 11 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 27.
3 Appellant and the Examiner both refer to the rejected claims as claims 11
through 37. (Final Act. 6; see also App. Br. 5.) We view these statements
as inadvertent errors, as they include canceled claims 14 and 15 within the
range of rejected claims. The cover page of the Final Action correctly lists
the pending rejected claims as claims 11—13 and 16—37. (Final Act. 1.)
4 Appellant’s contentions present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of Appellant’s arguments on appeal, we do not reach the
additional issues.
3
Appeal 2016-002144
Application 13/130,500
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. We concur with Appellant’s contention
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Fujisawa and Monden
teaches or suggests “wherein the rotational speed variable is an arithmetic or
weighted mean of the rotational speed of the first drive source and the
rotational speed of the second drive source,” as recited in claims 11 and 27.
The Examiner acknowledges that “Fujisawa does not appear to expressly
disclose wherein the rotational speed variable is an ‘arithmetic or weighted
mean’ of the rotational speed of the first drive source and the rotational
speed of the second drive source.” (Non-Final Action mailed May 9, 2014
(“Non-Final Act.”) 4 (incorporated by reference into Final Act. at 6).) The
Examiner relies on Monden as teaching “using a weighted mean method to
prevent fuel injection oscillations which result[] in deterioration of
driveability.” (Non-Final Act. 4.)
Appellant persuasively argues, however, that the “weighted average”
taught by Monden does not teach or suggest what is recited in Appellant’s
claims. In particular, Appellant argues:
Monden does not in fact disclose a generic weighted mean
method applicable to any system having oscillations, but instead
refers to a specific function of different values in time of a single
variable to address oscillations in that single variable. To the
extent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able
to generalize from the teachings of Monden, it would have been
that a calculation such as in Monden is applicable to addressing
oscillations in other single variables using different values in
time of such a single variable. Neither Monden nor Fujisawa
provide any suggestion that the approach of Monden could be
adapted somehow to address systems with multiple values at the
4
Appeal 2016-002144
Application 13/130,500
same time of multiple variables, or any indication of how to do
so.
(Reply Br. 7; see also App. Br. 8—9.) We are persuaded by these arguments
that the Examiner has failed to support a finding that the prior art teaches or
suggests “wherein the rotational speed variable is an arithmetic or weighted
mean of the rotational speed of the first drive source and the rotational speed
of the second drive source,” as recited in Appellant’s claims.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 11 and 27, or the rejections of the dependent claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11—13
and 16—37 is reversed.
REVERSED
5