VOLVO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 5, 2020

14913025 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2020)

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.
14/913,025 02/19/2016 Yaang ZHAO P16797USPC 1018
26694 7590 05/05/2020
VENABLE LLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON, DC 20043-9998
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, VIET P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2832
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2020 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):
PTOMail@Venable.com
khauser@venable.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YAANG ZHAO and ANDREW HIDISH
____________

Appeal 2019-003544
Application 14/913,025
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1–10. We have jurisdiction
over the Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Volvo Construction Equipment AB as
the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-003544
Application 14/913,025

2
Claim 1 is representative (emphasis added to highlight key limitation
in dispute):
1. A generator control system comprising:
a generator;
a variable displacement pump that drives a motor;
the motor that drives the generator;
a generator speed sensor that monitors the speed of the
generator and generates a measurement output signal that corresponds
to the speed of the generator;
a generator speed controller that receives the measurement
output signal from the generator speed sensor and generates a control
signal that controls the displacement of the variable displacement
pump, wherein:
the generator speed controller applies default commanded event
control gain values to the control signal when a commanded change in
the load or speed of the engine or generator occurs;
the generator speed controller applies uncommanded event
control gain values to the control signal in the absence of a
commanded change in load or speed of the engine or generator; and
the generator speed controller compares a magnitude of
generator speed surging that results from applying the uncommanded
event control gain values to a threshold value and reduces the
uncommanded event control gain values as needed until the
magnitude of generator speed surging is less than the threshold value
or until a minimum uncommanded event control gain value threshold
is reached.
Appeal 2019-003544
Application 14/913,025

3
(Appeal Br. 9, Claims Appendix).
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Olsen et al. (US 2010/0264885 A1; published Oct. 21,
2010) and Ito et al. (US 2001/0020192 A1; published Sep. 6, 2001).
Claims 3–4 and 8–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Olsen
and Ito, further in view of Parkes (EP 0096073; published March 11, 1987).
Appellant’s arguments are directly solely to the meaning of the
italicized phrases, which appear in claim 1 supra, as well as in independent
claim 6, which recites a method corresponding to system claim 1 (Appeal
Br. 10, Claims Appendix; generally Appeal Br.). Accordingly, we decide
each ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the basis of the
arguments made in support of patentability of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013).
OPINION
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record and each of
Appellant’s contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief filed December 18,
2018, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellant to
identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the
rejections for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer (e.g., Ans. 3–5 (dated January 31, 2019)). We add
the following for emphasis.
Appeal 2019-003544
Application 14/913,025

4
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
Appellant does not specifically dispute most of the Examiner’s
findings with respect to the teachings of Olsen and Ito except for alleging
that the combined process does not teach or suggest a controller which
“applies uncommanded event control gain values to the control signal in the
absence of a commanded change in load or speed of the engine or generator”
as required in claim 1 (e.g., Appeal Br. 6–7).
Appellant, however, has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
position that “absence of a commanded change” as recited in claim 1 (as
well as claim 6) encompasses the outer frequency loop used to compensate
for the change in engine load (i.e., the absence of a change in engine speed)
of Olsen in accord with the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“commanded” (e.g., Final Act. 9–10; Ans. 4–5 (wherein the Examiner
explains his interpretation of absence of a commanded change as a change
“where the system has no control on what the electric load does”)). Notably,
we do not find—and Appellant has not directed our attention to—any
limiting definitions in the Specification, nor does Appellant provide any
persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s
interpretation of the language of claim 1 is unreasonable.
Appeal 2019-003544
Application 14/913,025

5
Indeed, Appellant’s Specification only explains what a commanded
change is in a permissive manner, stating that “[t]he command in change …
may be manually commanded, by an operator, or by components” (Spec.
6:29–31; emphasis added) and fails to explain what an absence of a
commanded change means. Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification
expressly states that the invention is described for “illustrative purposes”
only and that “the scope of the invention is determined from the appended
claims” (Spec. 11). As such, the Examiner’s reliance on the changes in
engine load, the “disturbances” of Olsen as an uncommanded event (Ans. 4–
5), is not inconsistent with any particular definition in the Appellant’s
Specification or any evidence submitted with the Appellant’s arguments.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s
position that the claims encompass the Olsen/Ito generator control system,
and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, requiring no
more than ordinary creativity (Ans. 6–8). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also
a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); Ball Aerosol &
Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (explaining that under the flexible inquiry set forth by the
Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the “inferences and creative
steps,” as well as routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ).
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 6. No further substantive arguments were made
regarding the remaining § 103 rejections. Thus, we affirm all of the § 103
rejections of claims 1–10.
Appeal 2019-003544
Application 14/913,025

6
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–7, 10 103 Olsen, Ito 1, 2, 5–7, 10
3, 4, 8, 9 103 Olsen, Ito, Parkes 3, 4, 8, 9

Overall
Outcome
1–10

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this Appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED