Ex Parte Syed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

12825627 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/825,627 06/29/2010
28395 7590 08/22/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fazal Urrahman Syed
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.
83146220 2036
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte F AZAL URRAHMAN SYED, MING LANG KUANG,
CAROL LOUISE OKUBO, THOMAS CHROSTOWSKI, and
MATTHEWD. SMITH
Appeal 2014-007970 1,2
Application 12/825,627
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 4 and 7-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed June 29,
2010), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Feb. 13, 2014), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed July 11, 2014), as well as the Non-Final Office Action
("Non-Final Action," mailed Aug. 23, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer
("Answer," mailed June 20, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007970
Application 12/825,627
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "[a] control system
and method for controlling a hybrid electric vehicle powertrain with
mechanical and electro-mechanical power sources that use an intelligent
controller adapted to reduce driveline oscillations while minimizing hybrid
vehicle battery limit violations." Spec., Abstract. Claims 4 and 19 are the
only independent claims. See Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce
claim 4, below, as representative of the appealed claims.
Id.
4. A method for controlling a hybrid electric vehicle
having an engine, generator, battery, and motor comprising:
computing estimated engine output power based on at
least one of generator speed, desired traction wheel torque and
motor speed;
filtering the estimated engine output power; and
applying a dynamically adjusted, fuzzy scheduled
weighting factor to unfiltered and filtered engine output power
estimates to meet the driver torque demand.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claims 4, 8, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
"unclear for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter" that Appellants regard as the invention;
claims 4 and 7-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement; and
claims 4 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yoshino (US 6,401,016 Bl, iss. June 4, 2002).
See Non-Final Action 2-8.
2
Appeal2014-007970
Application 12/825,627
ANALYSIS
112, second paragraph, rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 8 as failing to particularly point
and distinctly claim what Appellants regard as the invention because "[t]he
[E]xaminer fails to find supporting evidence for a [claimed] step of
'determining a dynamically-adjusted, fuzzy-scheduled weighting factor.'"
Non-Final Action 3; see also Answer 3--4. We note, however, that neither
claim recites determining a dynamically-adjusted factor. See Appeal Br.,
Claims App. We determine that the Examiner does not establish that either
claims' omission of a "determining" step renders the claim "unclear"
because of the failure to set forth the subject matter that Appellants regard as
the invention. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 8.
With respect to claim 19, the Examiner determines that the claim
fails to conform to a format of a structural "a hybrid vehicle
system" claim; required structural limitations of a system claim
are unclear in claim 19; further; this claim "stn1cture" requires a
limitation of using available "a fuzzy-scheduled weight based in
part on driver torque demand"; however, this "a fuzzy-scheduled
weight based in part on driver torque demand" is not disclosed
for use yet.
Non-Final Action 4; see also Answer 4. We do not sustain the rejection.
For reasons similar to those set forth above for claims 4 and 8, the Examiner
does not establish that the claim fails to conform to any required format, or
is "unclear" because the claim fails to set forth the subject matter that
Appellants regard as the invention.
3
Appeal2014-007970
Application 12/825,627
112, first paragraph, rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 7-19 because "[i]ndependent
claims 4, [sic] and 19 require about [sic] using 'a dynamically-adjusted,
fuzzy-scheduled weighting factor'; this factor is dynamically changed; how
to derive this factor/coefficient in order to use for claimed 'output power
estimate' is not disclosed" in Appellants' Specification. Non-Final Action 4;
see also Answer 5. The Examiner reproduces paragraphs 39 and 40 of
Appellants' Specification, which the Examiner finds are "related to the
claimed subject matter." Non-Final Action 4; see also Answer 5. In
response, Appellants argue only that "the fuzzy logic weight scheduler
design is described at length [in the Specification] in at least p. 10, 1. 28 -
p. 19, 1. 14, Table 1, and equations 1.1[-]1.9. Applicant respectfully
submits that the dynamically-adjusted, fuzzy-scheduled weighting factor is
described in sufficient detail." Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 5.
"The specification shall contain a written description of the
invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 2 (2011). To show written description,
the test requires an objective inquiry into the four comers of the
specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an
invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the
inventor actually invented the invention claimed.
Ariad Pharms. V. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(en bane). Based on our review, we determine that the Examiner's
conclusion that the claimed factor is not described in sufficient detail by
Appellants' Specification is reasonable. For example, the equations set forth
in the portions of the application cited by the Examiner and Appellants
appear to include a number of variables that are not described in detail
sufficient for us to determine how values for these variables are to be
4
Appeal2014-007970
Application 12/825,627
determined for inclusion in the equations. Regardless, the Examiner's
statements we reproduce above are sufficient to establish a prima facie
rejection based on lack of written description, and Appellants' argument that
simply refers back to the Specification is insufficient to rebut the Examiner's
rejection. Thus, we sustain the written description rejection of claims 4
and 7-19.
Obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 19
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 19 as obvious based on Yoshino.
See Non-Final Action 7-8; see also Answer 7-8. Appellants argue that the
rejection is in error because in Yoshino "the indicated coefficient is included
in the filter GR, and is not used as a weighting factor between unfiltered and
filtered engine power estimates as recited in Applicant's claims. Yoshino
does not disclose this feature, nor would it be obvious to modify Yoshino to
include such a feature." Appeal Br. 6. We note that the Examiner does not
make any determination, in either the Non-Final Office Action or the
Answer, with respect to Yoshino and claim 4' s recitation of "applying a
dynamically adjusted, fuzzy scheduled weighting factor to unfiltered and
filtered engine output power estimates to meet the driver torque demand," or
the similar recitation in claim 19. Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis
added). Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 7-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 4, 8, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal2014-007970
Application 12/825,627
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6