Ex Parte Liang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2017

14103882 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2017)

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.
14/103,882 12/12/2013 Wei LIANG 83387274 5771
28395 7590 06/30/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER DANG, TINH
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2017 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 WEI LIANG, XIAOYONG WANG, MARK STEVEN,
RAJIT JOHRI, RYAN ABRAHAM McGEE, and MING LANG KUANG
Appeal 2017-001464
Application 14/103,882
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, SCOTT E. BAIN, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1—15, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2017-001464
Application 14/103,882
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention “relates to a torque control strategy of an
electrically powered traction motor in a hybrid electric vehicle.” (December
12, 2013 Specification (“Spec.”) 11.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is
reproduced below (with minor reformatting):
1. A vehicle comprising:
an engine;
an electric machine configured to power wheels of
the vehicle;
a clutch configured to selectively couple the engine
to the electric machine;
transmission gearing; and
at least one controller programmed to (i) slip the
clutch to reduce an amount of engine torque transferred
from the engine to the gearing and (ii) modify torque
output by the electric machine based upon an acceleration
of the electric machine.
Prior Art and Rejection on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Colvin et al. (“Colvin”) US 7,370,715 B2 May 13, 2008
Sakuta US 2012/0031201 Al Feb. 9,2012
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Colvin in view of Sakuta. (See Final Office Action
(mailed Nov. 25, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 2—8.)
2
Appeal 2017-001464
Application 14/103,882
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims on appeal.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites “modify torque output by the
electric machine based upon an acceleration of the electric machine.'1'’
(Emphases added.) The Examiner finds paragraph 33 of Sakuta teaches or
suggests the limitation at issue. (Final Act. 3 (“modify torque output by the
electric machine based upon an acceleration of the electric machine
(paragraph [0033], e.g., at the same time, the torque of the electric motor
preferably also increases).”).) The Examiner further explains that
paragraphs 33 and 36 and Figures 5a, 5c, and 5d of Sakuta teach:
. . . specifically during the second phase of engagement of the
separating clutch KO (i.e., the characteristic line of engagement
state of clutch KO as shown in Figure 5d), the torque of the
electric motor EM was adjusted by increasing in response to the
increasing of the rotational speed of electric motor EM to match
the speeds of each side of the clutch before entering the full
engagement phase. Consequently, the above teachings of
adjusting the torque of the electric motor in response [to]
increasing of the vehicle speed are interpreted as modifying the
motor torque output based on the acceleration of electric
machine. . . .
(Ans. 11—12, emphasis added.) Appellants contend that they “do[] not
dispute that the term ‘modify’ can be interpreted as decreasing or increasing
the torque of the motor[, b]ut, the Examiner has ignored the remainder of the
claim limitation: ‘modify torque output by the electric machine based upon
an acceleration of the electric machine.'''’'’ (App. Br. 7.) Specifically,
Appellants contend that “[njothing in the Examiner’s arguments [] teaches
3
Appeal 2017-001464
Application 14/103,882
any sort of link between acceleration and torque output of the electric
machine. Torque and acceleration are two completely different
characteristics, and Applicants] claim[] a link between the two.” (Id. at 7—
8.)
We agree with Appellants that, based on the record before us, the
portions of Sakuta cited by the Examiner do not teach or suggest the
limitation at issue. The claim limitation requires, “modify torque output. . .
based upon an acceleration of the electric machine.” Here, the Examiner
finds Sakuta teaches “adjusting the torque of the electric motor in response
[to] increasing of the vehicle speed,” which the Examiner finds teaches or
suggests the limitation at issue. (Ans. 11—12.) However, the Examiner does
not explain how modifying the torque output based on the change of the
vehicle speed would teach one of ordinary skill in the art modifying the
torque output based on acceleration.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 1 and do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim
l.2 Independent claims 8 and 13 contain a similar limitation at issue and the
Examiner cites to the same passages of Sakuta for the limitation and makes
similar findings. (Final Act. 5, 7; Ans 13 (“In response to appellant’s
argument against the relationship between modifying or changing the torque
output of the motor and the acceleration of the vehicle. The rationale here is
same as set forth above in claim 1”), Ans. 16 (“Moreover, in response to
2 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons
discussed herein, we need not address Appellants’ further arguments. See
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single
dispositive issue”).
4
Appeal 2017-001464
Application 14/103,882
appellants’] argument against the cited reference lacks the teaching of
modifying the torque output based on a rate change of the speed of the
electric machine. The rationale here is [the] same as set forth above in
claims 1 and 8[.]”).) Thus, for the same reason, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 8 and 13, as well as claims
2—7, 9-12, 14, and 15, which depend from either independent claim 1, 8, or
13.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—15.
REVERSED
5