Ex Parte SeelDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 201713130500 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation