Ex Parte Shizume et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613140871 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) 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. 13/140,871 06/20/2011 Masaru Shizume 99_020_TN 1778 23400 7590 01/04/2017 POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC 12040 SOUTH LAKES DRIVE EXAMINER HAMAOUI, DAVID E SUITE 101 RESTON, VA 20191 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): mailbox@poszlaw.com dposz@poszlaw.com tvarndell @ poszlaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASARU SHIZUME and YUKIO SUGANO Appeal 2015-003137 Application 13/140,871 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Masaru Shizume and Yukio Sugano (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject (1) claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kamado (US 2007/0016355 Al; pub. Jan. 18, 2007); and (2) claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kamado and Glickman (US 7,665,971 Bl; iss. Feb. 23, 2010). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kamado and Weisman, II (US 6,220,223 Bl; iss. April 24, 2001). See Ans. 2, 12. Accordingly, that rejection is not before us on appeal. Appeal 2015-003137 Application 13/140,871 We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “a device for controlling the output of an engine in correspondence to fluctuations of the load.” Spec. 11, Figs. 1, 2. Claims 1 and 5 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. An engine output control device that controls an engine that simultaneously drives at least one main machine and one auxiliary machine or more, wherein: the main machine is a travelling device or both of a travelling device and a working device among devices that are driven by output of the engine; the auxiliary machine is a device whose output is variable and which is driven by engine output of a machine other than the main machine, comprising: a total load value calculation unit that calculates a value of lost power consumed by said auxiliary machine, and calculates a value of total load power, which is the total of the power that must be supplied to said main machine and to said auxiliary machine, by adding a target value for main output power of said engine distributed to said main machine to the value of said lost power; a gross output value control unit that controls the value of gross output power outputted from said engine itself, according to the value of said total load power; and an engine drive control unit that controls the operation of said engine according to control of the value of said gross output power by said gross output value control unit; and wherein said gross output value control unit has a threshold value that is set within the range of variation of the value of said gross output power, and controls the value of said gross output power to become equal to the value of said total load 2 Appeal 2015-003137 Application 13/140,871 power when the value of said total load power is smaller than said threshold value, while controlling the value of said gross output power to become equal to said threshold value when the value of said total load power is larger than said threshold value. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 as anticipated by Kamado Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a total load value calculation unit that calculates a value of lost power consumed by said auxiliary machine, and calculates a value of total load power. . . by adding a target value for main output power of said engine distributed to said main machine to the value of said lost power.” Appeal Br. 27, Claims App. Independent claim 5 recites similar limitations. See id. at 29. The Examiner finds that Kamado teaches the limitations of claim 1 including the aforementioned total load value calculation unit. Ans. 3 (citing Kamado ]Hf 55, 56; Figs. 7A—9C). In particular, the Examiner finds that Kamado calculates/estimates a value of actual lost power determining that it is associated with coolant temperature. Id. at 7 (citing Kamado Tflf 27, 60). The Examiner further finds that Kamado calculates a value of total load power by adding a target value to an estimated actual lost power. Id. The Examiner correlates torque with load and relies on figures 7A—9C of Kamado as depicting “the total load is determined as a sum of the main engine load (unshaded portion) and the auxiliary machine (shaded portion). They are stacked, indicating they represent a sum. Also, see [0009].” Id. The Examiner applies the same findings to claim 5. See id. at 4. Appellants contend that “[njothing in Kamado [] estimates a value of lost power. Although a range of this lost power is shown mathematically 3 Appeal 2015-003137 Application 13/140,871 and graphically, no element in Kamado [] actually calculates a value of lost power.” Appeal Br. 17 (citing Kamado Tflf 132—142; Figs. 7A—9C). Appellants further contend that Kamado “simply selects an engine power curve (Rl, R2, or R3) based on a selected work mode (P: power, S: standard, or E: economy) and a measured temperature range for the engine coolant (A: high range, B: medium range, or C: low range).” Id. According to Appellants, Kamado “then controls the speed of the engine 1 to cause it to operate within that selected power curve.” Id. (citing Kamado Tflf 119, 127, 130). Referring to Figures 7 A—9C of Kamado, Appellants assert that Kamado employs the relationships of the curves shown in those figures to select the proper power curve R4, R5, or R6, but that “no element in Kamado ever actually takes a value of estimated power allocated to the traveling power train 10 and adds it to an estimated power allocated to the fan hydraulic pump 9 to obtain a value of total load power.” Reply Br. 5 Rather, Appellants state, “the controller 20 simply operates to limit the amount of power/torque provided to the traveling power train 10.” Id. (citing Kamado 127, 132); see also id. at 6, 7. Claims 1 and 5 of the subject invention require a total load calculation unit that calculates a value of total load power by adding a target value for main output power of the engine distributed to the main machine to the value of the lost power. See Appeal Br. 27, 29 Claims App. In contrast, Kamado provides predetermined power curves that are obtained by selecting an engine power curve (RI, R2, or R3) based on a selected work mode (P: power, S: standard, or E: economy) and a measured temperature range for the engine coolant (A: high range, B: medium range, or C: low range). See 4 Appeal 2015-003137 Application 13/140,871 Kamado, Fig. 5. Kamado’s power curves allocate power to fan hydraulic pump 9 as well control engine 1 by allocating or limiting the torque input to the traveling power train 10. See Kamado, Tflf 119, 125, 127, 132—134; Figs. 7A—9C. Moreover, apart from failing to calculate a total load power as claimed, Kamado is silent as to controlling the value of gross output power outputted from the engine 1 according to the total load power, and controlling the operation of the engine 1 according to control of the value of the gross output power, as recited in claims 1 and 5. See Reply Br. 10-12. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the predetermined power curves taught by Kamado satisfy several of the limitations of the engine output control devices recited in claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5 and their dependent claims 2 and 6 as anticipated by Kamado. Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over Kamado and Glickman Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected in further reliance on Glickman. See Ans. 4—5. However, Glickman is not relied upon to cure the deficiencies of Kamado. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claims 1 and 5, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over Kamado and Glickman. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—8. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation