11166321 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2012)

Ex Parte Stehle et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 10, 2012

11166321 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2012)

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. 11/166,321 06/24/2005 Bjoern Stehle LUKP:155US 7054 7590 05/10/2012 Robert P. Simpson, Esq. Simpson & Simpson, PLLC 5555 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221-5406 EXAMINER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte BJOERN STEHLE and KLAUS HENNEBERGER ____________ Appeal 2009-014912 Application 11/166,321 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GAY ANN SPAHN, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014912 Application 11/166,321 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Bjoern Stehle and Klaus Henneberger (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-14. Claim 8 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to “a method for the protection of an automatically actuated clutch of a vehicle against overload” including determining the energy input into the clutch. Spec. 1, para. [0002] and Spec. 2, para. [0012]. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A method for the protection of an automatically actuated clutch of a vehicle from overload, comprising: determining a driving situation of the vehicle; continuously determining the energy input in the clutch; and, preventing or reducing an overload state via targeted intervention in vehicle management as a function of the determined driving situation and the input energy, wherein various targeted interventions in the vehicle management are made as a function of prescribed threshold values of the energy input in the clutch or of the expected energy input, it being possible to calculate the threshold values as a function of the current temperature of the clutch. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Söderholm US 6,012,323 Jan. 11, 2000 Steeby US 6,482,123 B2 Nov. 19, 2002 Jung US 2003/0043032 A1 Mar. 6, 2003 Appeal 2009-014912 Application 11/166,321 3 Stork US 2004/0157704 A1 Aug. 12, 2004 The following rejections are before us for review: The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jung. The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung and Steeby. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung and Söderholm. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung, Söderholm, and Stork. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. ANALYSIS The anticipation rejection Independent claim 1 requires a step of “determining the energy input in the clutch.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. Pointing to paras. 8 through 10 of Jung, the Examiner found that Jung teaches a method for protecting an automatically actuated clutch from overload “as a function of the determined driving situation and the input energy.” Ans. 4. Appellants argue that because Jung teaches detecting a transmission speed n and a drive pedal actuation x, “there is no teaching [in Jung] regarding determining the actual energy input to the clutch.” App. Br. 4. In other words, as far as we understand, Appellants appear to argue that the Appeal 2009-014912 Application 11/166,321 4 transmission speed and the drive pedal actuation do not constitute an energy input in the clutch. In response, the Examiner notes that it is “known in the art [that] speed is a variable that is used to determine the energy of the system.” Ans. 8. Hence, according to the Examiner, because Jung teaches a transmission speed, a measurement of drive pedal actuation, and an engine and gearbox speed, “Jung discloses of determining the energy that is input into the clutch.” Ans. 7. See also, Jung, paras. [008]-[0010] and [0016]. We disagree with the Examiner’s position for the following reasons. In the method of Jung for protecting an automatically actuated clutch from overload, Jung teaches determining a transmission speed n or a slip speed (difference between engine and gearbox speed) and a drive pedal actuation x. Jung, paras. [0008]-[0010], [0013], and [0016]. Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that speed is a parameter that may be used to determine the energy of a mechanical system,1 nonetheless, independent claim 1 specifically requires a step of “determining the energy input in the clutch.” We could not find any portion in Jung and the Examiner has not pointed to any portion of Jung that teaches a method step of “determining the energy input in the clutch,” as called for 1 For example, Appellants’ Specification describes that the energy input into the clutch can be determined at any instant time as an “integral of the friction introduced into the clutch at any instant over time.” Spec. 3, para. [0017]. In turn, the amount of friction (PFriction) can be determined as a product of the current slip speed (ωslip) and the current friction moment (MFriction) at the clutch, whereas the friction moment being introduced can be determined based on engine speed, engine torque, and the mass moment of inertia of the engine and of the clutch flywheel. Spec. 3-4, paras. [0018]- [0019]. Appeal 2009-014912 Application 11/166,321 5 by claim 1. As such, although Jung teaches determining certain engine parameters, i.e., transmission speed, slip speed, and drive pedal actuation, and these parameters may be used to determine the energy input in the clutch, as the Examiner opines, nonetheless, Jung does not teach using these parameters to determine the energy input in a clutch. See Reply Br. 4. Hence, Jung does not teach a step of “determining the energy input in the clutch,” as called for by independent claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jung cannot be sustained. The obviousness rejections With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3-5 as unpatentable over Jung and Steeby; of claim 6 as unpatentable over Jung and Söderholm; and of claim 7 as unpatentable over Jung, Söderholm, and Stork, the addition of Steeby, Söderholm, and Söderholm and Stork, respectively, does not remedy the deficiencies of Jung as described above. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3-5 as unpatentable over Jung and Steeby; of claim 6 as unpatentable over Jung and Söderholm; and of claim 7 as unpatentable over Jung, Söderholm, and Stork likewise cannot be sustained. SUMMARY The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 9-14 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2009-014912 Application 11/166,321 6 mls