John Eric. Rollinger et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

13353240 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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.
13/353,240 01/18/2012 John Eric Rollinger 83201604 6494
36865 7590 08/02/2019
MCCOY RUSSELL LLP
806 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, JOSHUA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 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):
usptomail@mccrus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN ERIC ROLLINGER,
MICHAEL IGOR KLUZNER, and ROBERT ROY JENTZ
____________________

Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before BRADLEY B. BAYAT, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants John Eric Rollinger,
Michael Igor Kluzner, and Robert Roy Jentz1 appeal from the Examiner’s
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated April 5, 2016 (“Final
Act.”), rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6–12, 14–19, and 21–27.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A hearing was held on April 18, 2019.
We REVERSE.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The patent application is directed to an air/fuel imbalance monitor.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for an engine comprising:
injecting fuel to generate a series of rich, lean, and
stoichiometric conditions in an engine cylinder;
identifying, via an electronic controller, an air/fuel
imbalance in the cylinder based on crankshaft accelerations
generated by the series of rich, lean, and stoichiometric
conditions and sensed by the controller;
while injecting fuel to generate the series of rich, lean, and
stoichiometric conditions, keeping the engine at stoichiometry
by injecting fuel to generate another series of lean, rich, and
stoichiometric conditions in another cylinder, the identifying
based on a slope or shape of the sensed crankshaft accelerations
mapped by the controller versus air/fuel ratios corresponding to
the series of rich, lean, and stoichiometric conditions; and

1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief, dated September 6, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), at 3.
2 Claims 2, 5, 13, and 20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 32–36 (Claims
App’x.).
Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

3

adjusting, via the controller, an amount of fuel supplied to
the cylinder identified as imbalanced.

REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Minamitani
Moser
Nankee
Watabe
Javaherian
US 4,703,735
US 4,984,551
US 5,255,661
JP 11-030132
US 6,668,812 B2
Nov. 3, 1987
Jan. 15, 1991
Oct. 26, 1993
Feb. 2, 1999
Dec. 30, 2003
Hohner DE 10 2007 043 734 A1 Mar. 19, 2009
Nakagawa
Nishida
US 2011/0100327 A1
US 2011/0191006 A1
May 5, 2011
Aug. 4, 2011

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Minamitani, Watabe, and Moser.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Minamitani, Watabe, and Nankee.
3. Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Minamitani, Watabe, and Nishida.
4. Claims 4, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Minamitani, Watabe, and Javaherian.
5. Claims 10–12, 14, 15, 17–19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakagawa, Minamitani, and
Moser.
Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

4

6. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakagawa, Minamitani, and Javaherian.
7. Claims 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakagawa, Minamitani, and Hohner.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 6, and 7
as Unpatentable Over Minamitani, Watabe, and Moser
The Examiner finds that Minamitani and Moser disclose all of the
limitation of independent claim 1 except for the limitation reciting that
“identifying . . . an air/fuel imbalance in the cylinder based on crankshaft
accelerations generated by the series of rich, lean, and stoichiometric
conditions and sensed by the controller” is “based on a slope or shape of the
sensed crankshaft accelerations mapped by the controller versus air/fuel
ratios corresponding to the series of rich, lean, and stoichiometric
conditions.” Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds that this missing limitation
is disclosed by Watabe. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner explains that Watabe
states that, “When there is a cylinder with a large difference of a combustion
state especially at the time of idle operation, there is a problem which
becomes, so that the vibration and sound by the aforementioned rotational
variation are transmitted also to a driver, and impairs the amenity.” Id. at 6
(citing Watabe ¶ 2). The Examiner also finds that Watabe is directed to
“[i]dentifying an air/fuel imbalance would allow normalization of the air-
fuel ratio between engine cylinders, thereby for example, reducing vibrations
while the engine idles” (id. at 6), and that “Watabe uses the functional
Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

5

relationship between the slope/shape of the sensed crankshaft accelerations
versus a variation in air-fuel ratios to adjust an amount of fuel to an
imbalanced cylinder” (Ans. 13 (citing Watabe ¶¶ 29–32)). The Examiner
asserts that Watabe identifies an air/fuel imbalance because “Watabe is
directed toward reducing variations in the rotational speed of the engine
crankshaft [0004], due to incorrect quantities of air and fuel supplied to an
identified engine cylinder [0002],” and the “routine of Figure 4 shows that
both the throttle opening, and therefore the intake air amount, and the fuel
injection amount are corrected in steps S103 and S104 to achieve a target
air-fuel ratio [0032].” Ans. 13.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art at “to combine Watabe’s steps of identifying
an air/fuel imbalance in a cylinder based on a shape of crankshaft
accelerations mapped versus air/fuel ratios, and adjusting an amount of fuel
supplied to the imbalanced cylinder with the method for an engine disclosed
by Minamitani.” Final Act. 6.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s findings as to Watabe are
erroneous. Reply Br. 2–5. We agree. First, Appellants correctly explain
that “paragraph [0002] of Watabe does not describe incorrect quantities of
air and fuel being supplied to an identified engine cylinder as alleged,” and
“[i]Instead, this passage describes various other phenomena that affect the
combustion states, such as the compression ratio, tip bore diameter, etc.” Id.
at 2. We agree with Appellants that the “Answer fails to rebut this point,
and instead continues to rely on paragraph [0002] without an explanation of
where it allegedly describes incorrect quantities of air and fuel supplied to an
identified engine cylinder.” Id.
Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

6

Second, Appellants further assert that, contrary to the Examiner’s
findings about the routine of Figure 4 of Watabe, “the routine of Fig. 4 of
Watabe has nothing to do with identifying an air/fuel ratio imbalance,” and
“is described at paragraphs [0029] – [0032] of Watabe.” Id. We agree with
Appellants that Watabe’s
routine includes determining which engine cylinder has the
lowest revolution speed relative to an average revolution speed
of all engine cylinders (at S101 and S102), increasing the
quantity of air supplied to that cylinder to improve combustion
stability (at S103), and increasing the quantity of fuel injected
to that cylinder to maintain a target air/fuel ratio (at S104).

Id. Appellants correctly explain, “the air/fuel ratio is not modified via the
routine of Fig. 4,” and “the quantity of fuel injected to the cylinder is
increased in accordance with the increased amount of air supplied to the
cylinder, to ensure that the air/fuel ratio will remain at the target air/fuel
ratio.” Id.; see Watabe ¶ 31 (“[S]tabilization becomes possible by
improving operational status by making suction air quantity increase, and
also making fuel oil consumption increase to the cylinder in which the
combustion state got worse, so that a target air fuel ratio may not be
changed.”). We agree with Appellants that Watabe “is not concerned with
identifying an air/fuel ratio imbalance, and instead focuses on other factors
leading to combustion instability (e.g., variations in cylinder dimensions due
to imprecise manufacturing methods, etc.).” Id. (citing Watabe ¶¶ 2–3).
The Examiner does not explain how the fact that Watabe adjusts fuel
injection quantity to preempt a possible air/fuel ratio imbalance discloses
identifying an air/fuel ratio imbalance as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

7

For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 6 and 7 which depend from claim 1, based
on Minamitani, Watabe, and Moser.

Rejections 2–4: Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 26, and 27
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 26, and 27 depend from independent claim 1. The
Examiner rejected claim 3 based on Minamitani, Watabe, and Nankee,
claims 4, 8, and 9 based on Minamitani, Watabe, and Javaherian, and claims
26 and 27 based on Minamitani, Watabe, and Nishida. Final Act. 6–8. The
Examiner’s reliance on Nankee, Javaherian, and Nishida does not cure the
deficiencies in the combination of Minamitani and Watabe as described
above in connection with the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 26, and 27.

Rejection 5: Claims 10–12, 14, 15, 17–19, 21, and 22
as Unpatentable Over Nakagawa, Minamitani, and Moser
Independent claim 10 recites, in part, “mapping the crankshaft
accelerations versus air/fuel ratios corresponding to the modulated air/fuel
ratio conditions in the selected cylinder via the electronic engine controller.”
Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App’x.). Independent claim 18 recites, in part, a
controller configured to
identify a cylinder with a potential air/fuel imbalance based on
crankshaft accelerations generated by a series of rich, lean, and
stoichiometric conditions in the cylinder, while keeping the
engine at stoichiometry, wherein the identifying is based on a
slope or shape of a mapping of sensed crankshaft accelerations
versus air/fuel ratios corresponding to the series of rich, lean,
and stoichiometric conditions as compared with an ideal torque
Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

8

curve versus air/fuel ratios corresponding to the series of rich,
lean, and stoichiometric conditions.

Id. at 35–36. The Examiner finds that Nakagawa “discloses mapping the
crankshaft accelerations versus air/fuel ratios corresponding to the
modulated air/fuel ratio conditions in the selected cylinder via the electronic
engine controller.” Ans. 15; see Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner explains:
As shown in Figure 15, unit 163 estimates the air/fuel ratio based
on the dispersion of angular acceleration with respect to each
cylinder calculated in unit 162. Nakagawa further discloses
identifying via the electronic engine controller a potential air/fuel
imbalance in the selected cylinder based on a slope or shape of
the mapping of the crankshaft accelerations versus the modulated
air/fuel ratios compared with an ideal curve, wherein the
mapping of the crankshaft accelerations versus air/fuel ratios
further includes calculating a curve fit to the corresponding
modulated air/fuel ratio conditions in the selected cylinder,
wherein normalized torque accelerations are used to populate the
mapping of the crankshaft accelerations versus air/fuel ratios. As
shown in Figure 15, with identification of the air/fuel imbalance,
unit 164 corrects the air/fuel imbalance using a calculated curve
fit that decreases the fuel injection amount until a mean value of
the angular acceleration of the specific cylinder becomes smaller
than the predetermined value A2. Normalized torque
accelerations are used to populate the mapping of crankshaft
accelerations as shown by units 163 and 164. The predetermined
value A2 is determined as a value for which an increase in torque
for the identified cylinder ceases.
Ans. 15–16.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings are erroneous because
“Fig. 15 of Nakagawa, along with the remainder of the reference,” does not
disclose “that various claim features are shown in Fig. 15 of Nakagawa.”
Reply Br. 7; see Appeal Br. 24–25. We agree.
Figure 15 of Nakagawa is reproduced below:
Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

9

Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

10

Nakagawa explains that Figure 15 schematically shows an engine control
apparatus wherein
the intake air amount of the specific cylinder the torque of which
is judged comparable with those of all the other cylinders and the
air/fuel ratio of which is judged leaner than those of any other
cylinders, is corrected and decreased until the dispersion of the
angular acceleration of the specific cylinder becomes smaller
than the predetermined value B1.
Nakagawa ¶ 37. The Examiner findings do not explain where Nakagawa
discloses “mapping the crankshaft accelerations versus air/fuel ratios
corresponding to the modulated air/fuel ratio conditions in the selected
cylinder via the electronic engine controller” as recited in claim 10, or where
Nakagawa discloses using a slope or shape of mapping as compared with an
ideal curve or inclusion of calculating a curve fit as recited in claim 18.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 10 and 18,
and their dependent claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 22.

Rejections 6 and 7: Claims 16 and 23–25
The Examiner rejected claim 16 based on Nakagawa, Minamitani, and
Javaherian, and claims 23–25 based on Nakagawa, Minamitani, and Hohner.
Final Act. 13–14. The Examiner’s reliance on Javaherian and Hohner does
not cure the deficiencies in the combination of Nakagawa and Minamitani as
described above in connection with the rejection of independent claims 10
and 18. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 16 and
23–25.

Appeal 2017-004885
Application 13/353,240

11

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–
12, 14–19, and 21–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are REVERSED.

REVERSED