Ex Parte Spannheimer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

13195651 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/195,651 08/01/2011
23911 7590 05/05/2016
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Helmut SPANNHEIMER
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.
080437.63672US 2314
EXAMINER
KLEINMAN, LAIL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HELMUT SP ANNHEIMER and DIRK WISSELMANN
Appeal2014-004097
Application 13/195,651 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--7. Claims 2 and 3 are canceled.2 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, Bayerische Motoren W erke
Aktiengesellschaft is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 For the reasons provided in the Appeal Brief at pages 2-3, including
footnote 1, we agree with the Appellants that claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
See also Ans. 2.
Appeal2014-004097
Application 13/195,651
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. An acceleration control method for a motor vehicle
comprising at least one of an internal-combustion engine and an
electric motor, and a transmission unit and an accelerator element
operable by the driver for accelerating the motor vehicle, the
method comprising the acts of:
providing an accelerator element operable with an
inflection point at which an increased restoring force occurs;
providing an acceleration control by which the motor
vehicle is operable in at least two different operating modes,
including an energy-optimized acceleration mode during which
adaptation of a parameterization of at least one of a characteristic
engine diagram, a generator control, and characteristic shifting
curves for the motor vehicle reduces an amount of fuel
consumption that occurs during an acceleration of the motor
vehicle as compared to an amount of fuel consumption that
would have occurred during the acceleration without said
adaptation; and
during operation of the accelerator element, changing the
acceleration control into the energy-optimized acceleration mode
upon reaching the inflection point.
Rejections
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated Kaye (US 4,516,063, iss. May 7, 1985).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kaye and Coughlin (US 2007/0276582 Al, pub. Nov. 29,
2007).
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kaye.
2
Appeal2014-004097
Application 13/195,651
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is directed to "[a]n acceleration control method
for a motor vehicle" and requires "providing an acceleration control by
which the motor vehicle is operable in at least two different operating
modes," wherein one of the modes is
an energy-optimized acceleration mode during which adaptation
of a parameterization of at least one of a characteristic engine
diagram, a generator control, and characteristic shifting curves
for the motor vehicle reduces an amount of fuel consumption that
occurs during an acceleration of the motor vehicle as compared
to an amount of fuel consumption that would have occurred
during the acceleration without said adaptation.
See Appeal Br. 14, Claims App. (emphasis added).
The Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to support the finding
that Kaye discloses the aforementioned requirement of claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 7-10; see also Reply Br. 2--4. We determine that the Appellants'
contention is persuasive.
The Examiner finds that Kaye's signal processing device 1, and its
associated programming, corresponds to the claimed accelerator control and
energy-optimized acceleration mode. See Ans. 3 (citing Kaye, col. 3, 11. 4--
27); see also Final Act. 4 (citing Kaye, col. 4, 11. 46-51). The cited
disclosure of Kaye teaches adapting an accelerator pedal by using
accelerator pedal setting values that provide an optimal pedal position for a
driver in order to reduce fuel consumption. 3
3 Kaye's accelerator pedal setting values are stored in a look-table and based
on various sensed electrical signals from transducers associated with the
motor vehicle. See Kaye, Figs. 1-2, col. 3, 11. 4--27.
3
Appeal2014-004097
Application 13/195,651
The Appellants argue that Kaye's stored accelerator pedal setting
values define the point along the path of the accelerator pedal where "some
form of feedback is provided to the driver, based on the determined optimal
pedal position." Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 7-9. Thus, Appellants
argue, the fuel efficiency in Kaye is based on a driver's behavior, rather than
alteration of a vehicle's behavior, i.e., a mode that adapts parameters of at
least one of a characteristic engine diagram, a generator control, and
characteristic shifting curves for the motor vehicle that reduces an amount of
fuel consumption, as required by claim 1. See Reply Br. 3--4. The
Appellants' arguments are persuasive as the claim requires that the claimed
energy-optimized acceleration mode is based on changes in the motor
vehicle rather than the driver's use of the motor vehicle, as disclosed by
Kaye.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent
claim 4, as anticipated by Kaye is not sustained. The remaining rejections
based on Kaye alone or in combination with Coughlin rely on the same
inadequately supported finding discussed above with regard to independent
claim 1. As such, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of: claims 5 and 7 as unpatentable over Kaye and Coughlin; and claim 6 as
unpatentable over Kaye.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--7.
REVERSED
4