Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

13795450 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
13/795,450 03/12/2013 Yimin Liu 83350792 5451
28395 7590 09/01/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER ROBERSON, JASON R
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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 YIMIN LIU, PERRY ROBINSON MACNEILLE, and
MICHAEL EDWARD LOFTUS
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yimin Liu et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC, as the real
party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive a request for a calculation of a probability of a
vehicle reaching a received destination;
receive vehicle current power-usage data;
gather route-data affecting vehicle power usage;
calculate estimated impact of vehicle system power
utilization changes, implemented over a remaining route to the
destination, on remaining power reserves; and
return the estimated impact and related vehicle system
power utilization changes to a requesting entity.
Br. (Claims App. 1).
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1—4, 6—11, 13—18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gutman (US 2012/0173134 Al, published
July 5, 2012) and Luke (US 2013/0030630 Al, published Jan. 31, 2013).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gutman, Luke, and Diller (US 5,487,002, Jan. 13, 1996).
2 A rejection based on the ground of non-statutory, obviousness-type double
patenting over U.S. Appln. No. 13/769,416 has been withdrawn. Ans. 4.
2
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—4, 6—11, 13—18, and 20 as unpatentable over Gutman and Luke
Claims 1—4, 6, and 7
The Examiner finds that Gutman inherently discloses the limitation
“calculate estimated impact of vehicle system power utilization changes . . .
on remaining power reverses” (hereafter “calculate limitation”). Final Act. 5
(citing Gutman || 114—116, “feasibility” and “cost model”). The Examiner
also finds that Luke discloses the calculate limitation. Id. (citing Luke 193,
“comparison of travel distance and estimated range”). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of
Luke into Gutman “to reduce costs, improve efficiencies and performance,
and to meet competitive pressures.” Id. (citing Gutman 19).
Appellants contend that Luke does not disclose the calculate
limitation. Br. 6. Luke discloses:
At 508, the controller of the vehicle or the backend system
determines whether to limit operational characteristic of a prime
mover and/or vehicle accessories based at least in part on result
of comparison of determined travel distance and determined
estimated range. Thus, for example if the determined travel
distance is more than 90% of the estimated available range, the
controller or backend system may determine that vehicle
operation should be limited in order extend the estimate range.
Luke 193 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend that this description in Luke discloses that “an
actual distance to be traveled is calculated and compared to an actual
estimated remaining range,” but does not mention the use of “impact of
power utilization changes” in the estimation of either travel distance or
estimated range. Br. 5. Appellants also contend that this description
discloses “that the system then determines whether to limit power utilization
3
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
based on the comparison between the travel distance and the remaining
range,” but that Luke does not teach or suggest “calculation of the estimated
impact of vehicle system power utilization changes on remaining power
reserves.'1'’ Id.
In response, the Examiner construes “estimated impact on power
reserves” “to include percentage chance changes of route success likelihood,
based on power utilization changes.” Ans. 6. The Examiner also construes
“power utilization changes” “as any system changes that increase or
decrease the consumption level of the vehicle power source.” Id. The
Examiner explains that Luke’s controller limits vehicle accessories to ensure
the vehicle has an adequate range to reach a site. Id. at 7 (citing Luke 19).
The Examiner equates this limiting of vehicle accessories with the claimed
“vehicle system power utilization changes.” Id. The Examiner finds that the
“determined estimated range” described in Luke teaches “on remaining
power reserves.” Id. at 8 (citing Luke 190; see id. 193). According to the
Examiner:
It is clear that the controller’s comparison and limitation
of vehicle accessories clearly teaches the limitation calculate
the estimated impact of vehicle system power utilization
changes, because the controller must calculate the percentage
increases in the estimated range it would receive by limiting
various vehicle accessories, and therefore increase estimated
range such that the travel distance is less than 90% of the
estimated range.
Id. at 9.
Appellants’ Specification does not describe the term “vehicle system
power utilization changes.” The Specification does describe various
“options,” such as turning off the air conditioner or all media in a vehicle, a
driver may select to increase the likelihood that the vehicle reaches a
4
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
destination by some percentage associated with the respective options. See
Spec. 143. The Specification also describes:
the process shows a number of options for the driver to increase
a chance of successful arrival 405. The options, which are touch
selectable in this example, include both a percentage increase
409 and a description of what the option entails 407. The driver
can select one or more options and, in this case, see an update
to the display, signifying the change resulting from the update.
Spec. 1 59 (emphasis added); see id. at Fig. 4. The “options” on the display
shown in Figure 4 are closely similar to the options described in paragraphs
43 and 59. As shown, each of the options has an associated numerical
percentage change value that results from selecting it. Once the driver
makes a selection of one or more of the options, the change resulting from
the selection is updated on the display for viewing by the driver. Consistent
with this disclosure, the claim term “vehicle system power utilization
changes” corresponds to the “options.”
In Luke, limiting an operational characteristic (e.g., power
consumption) would appear to affect the vehicle’s estimated range, thereby
changing the difference between the determined travel distance and the
estimated available range. However, even assuming limiting of vehicle
accessories in Luke can be considered “vehicle system power utilization
changes” (Ans. 7), the disclosure in Luke relied on by the Examiner does not
indicate that a processor calculates (i.e., determines quantitatively) an
“estimated impact” of limiting operational characteristics on “remaining
power reserves” of the vehicle. Consequently, the Examiner’s finding that
“the controller [of Luke] must calculate the percentage increases in the
estimated range it would receive by limiting various vehicle accessories” is
5
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ans. 9 (emphasis
added).
As Luke does not disclose the calculate limitation, then Luke also
does not disclose the limitation “return the [calculated] estimated impact and
related vehicle system power utilization changes to a requesting entity.”
Appellants also contend that paragraphs 114—116 of Gutman do not
disclose the calculate limitation. Br. 6—8. Regarding inherency, “[t]he mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient [to establish inherency].” See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1533—
34 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Gutman discloses that
[t]he navigation system 100 can verily a feasibility 374 of the
entirety of the travel route 216 to reach the destination 206. The
feasibility 374 is defined as the ability for the user’s vehicle to
reach the next of the intermediate stops 210, the replenishment
locations 218, and the destination 206.
Gutman 1109, Figs. 2, 3. The navigation system 100 can verily the
feasibility 374 of travel route 216 prior to traversing along travel route 216,
and update the feasibility 374 while traversing along travel route 216. Id.
1114. Gutman defines the “cost model” 338 “as the pattern of consumption
by the vehicle for resource, fuel, or the combination thereof selected by the
navigation system 100 for reaching the destination 206. For example, the
cost model 338 can include ‘unrestricted consumption’ or ‘moderate
consumption.’” Id. 1115. The cost model 338 can be selected by the
navigation system 100 based on the feasibility 374 of travel route 216. Id.
1116.
Appellants contend that the portions of Gutman cited by the Examiner
discuss ‘ first examining a feasibility of a route, and then selecting a power
6
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
utilization model based on the feasibility of the route.” Br. 7. Appellants
contend that, in Gutman, a user requests a route with particular
characteristics, and, then, based on the availability of recharging points and
an amount of power needed to complete the route, one of the predefined cost
models is selected. Id. Appellants contend that Gutman does not
necessarily “calculate an estimated impact... on remaining power
reserves,” but has a predetermined impact for each cost model. Id. Thus,
rather than selecting a cost model and then determining its estimated impact
on remaining power reserves, Gutman simply presumes a predicted impact.
Id. at 7—8.
Appellants also contest the Examiner’s finding that Gutman discloses
the limitation “return the estimated impact and related vehicle system power
utilization changes to a requesting entity.” Br. 8 (emphasis added); see Final
Act. 3 (citing Gutman || 115—116, “cost model 338”).
The Examiner responds that Gutman discloses use of cost model 338
(i.e., “power utilization changes”), which represents a fuel consumption rate,
selected by the navigation system based on the feasibility (i.e., “estimated
impact”) of the travel route. Ans. 9 (citing Gutman 1116). The Examiner
determines that changes in cost model 338 meet the Examiner’s construction
of “vehicle system power utilization changes.” Id. at 9—10. The Examiner
also determines that Gutman’s definition of “feasibility” meets the
limitations “estimated impact” and “implemented over a remaining route to
the destination, on remaining power reserves.” Id. at 10 (citing Gutman
H 109—110). Continuing, the Examiner determines that Gutman describes
updating the feasibility 374 of travel route 216 while traversing along it. Id.
(citing Gutman 1114). The Examiner reasons that updating the feasibility
7
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
of travel route 216 when a cost model selection occurs is inherent in
Gutman, and, therefore, Gutman inherently meets the limitation “calculate
estimated impact of vehicle system power utilization changes.” Id. The
Examiner explains that “the only way for the system of Gutman to update
the feasibility of each travel route is to make calculations of the change in
feasibility, based on the change in Cost Model.” Id.
Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. Although Gutman discloses
that the feasibility can be updated while a vehicle is traversing along a travel
route, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Gutman that supports
the finding that the feasibility is necessarily updated when a cost model
selection occurs, or that the updating is “based on” a change in the cost
model. See Ans. 10. Gutman discloses that the cost model can be selected
by the navigation system based on the feasibility of the travel route. In other
words, Gutman describes selecting the cost model after determining
feasibility, not vice versa. See Gutman 1116.
Furthermore, the examples described at paragraphs 116 and 117 of
Gutman do not appear to support the Examiner’s position. These paragraphs
describe the selection of an appropriate cost model by the vehicle navigation
system based upon the determined feasibility. Paragraph 116 describes an
example where a user requests the shortest travel time to reach a destination
in a vehicle and the vehicle navigation system selects the cost model that
represents “unrestricted consumption” and includes freeway travel.
Paragraph 117 describes another example where a user requests the shortest
travel time to reach a destination, but the availability of stations to replenish
the vehicle’s hydrogen fuel cell are limited. To avoid running out of fuel,
the feasibility of the travel route may restrict the vehicle navigation system
8
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
from providing a travel route that only includes freeways, which may
otherwise be permitted when the “unrestricted consumption” cost model is
selected. Responsive to the determined feasibility:
[T]he navigation system 100 can generate the travel route 216
that includes local roads where the replenishment locations 218
can replenish the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Hence, the
navigation system 100 can select the cost model 338 that
represents “moderate consumption” to avoid over consumption
by the vehicle of the resource, fuel, or the combination thereof
for reaching the destination 206.
Id. 1117.
The Examiner states that “[ejxamples of Cost Models are provided as
‘high consumption’ when feasibility of reaching a replenishment location is
high (Paragraph [0116]), and ‘moderate consumption’ when feasibility of
reaching a replenishment location is low (Paragraph [0117]).” Ans. 9. We
agree that the “cost model” described in Gutman relates to the availability of
fuel replenishment locations for the vehicle along a travel route. However,
paragraphs 116 and 117 of Gutman do not appear to disclose that the
“moderate consumption” cost model necessarily relates to a lower vehicle
fuel consumption rate as compared to the “unrestricted consumption” cost
model, as appears to be the Examiner’s understanding. Id. Rather, the
described examples indicate that the “moderate consumption” cost model
provides a travel route with a greater availability of fuel replenishment
locations for the vehicle than would the “unrestricted consumption” cost
model.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that Gutman inherently discloses
the calculate limitation is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
It follows, then, that Gutman also does not disclose the “return” limitation of
9
Appeal 2015-003367
Application 13/795,450
claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2—4, 6,
and 7 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Gutman and Luke.
Claims 8—1L 13—18, and 20
Claim 8 recites a computer implemented method comprising steps
similar to the limitations recited in claim 1 (Br. (Claims App. 1—2)), and
claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that
performs a method comprising the same steps as in claim 8 {id. (Claims
App. 2—3)). In rejecting claims 8 and 15, the Examiner relies on the same
findings and reasoning as for claim 1. Final Act. 7. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 8 or 15, or claims 9-11, 13, 14, 16—18, and 20
depending from claim 1 or 15, as unpatentable over Gutman and Luke for
reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 as unpatentable over Gutman, Luke, and Diller
The Examiner’s additional reliance on Diller fails to cure the
deficiencies of the rejection of claims 1, 8, or 15 from which claims 5, 12,
and 19 respectively depend. Final Act. 8—9. We do not sustain the rejection
of claims 5, 12, and 19 as unpatentable over Gutman, Luke, and Diller.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
10