Ex Parte LuedtkeDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 30, 201713607005 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/607,005 09/07/2012 Daniel Luedtke 83257451 9388 28395 7590 09/01/2017 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER DHAKAL, BICKEY 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 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 DANIEL LUEDTKE Appeal 2016-004510 Application 13/607,0051 Technology Center 2800 Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant requests rehearing of the Decision on Appeal, mailed June 26, 2017 (“Decision”), affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 7, and reversing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—6 and 10—14.2 For the reasons set forth herein, the Request is DENIED. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Brief 2 (Aug. 28, 2015) [hereinafter Appeal Br.]. 2 Request for Rehearing, Aug. 8, 2017 [hereinafter Request], Appeal 2016-004510 Application 13/607,005 In the Final Action, the Examiner found that Abolhassani3 teaches a controller that “maintain[s] torque with a constant slope of speed and voltage.”4 Final Action 7 (citing Abolhassani H 7, 39). In the Answer,5 the Examiner clarified this by referring to Abolhassani’s Figure 6, reproduced below: PWM Duly Cytie Field Weakening Figure 6 “shows a curve 120 representing the power output and phase voltage of the motor ... at various motor speeds, as well as an exemplary torque/flux curve 121 representing different torque and flux generated by the motor at different motor speeds.” Abolhassani 139. It also shows two operating ranges, one labeled “PWM Duty Control Range,” in which the motor is controlled by pulse width modulation. Id. The Examiner found 3 Abolhassani et al., US 2007/0267990 A1 (published Nov. 22, 2007). 4 Final Office Action, April 23, 2015 [hereinafter Final Action], 5 Examiner’s Answer, Feb. 4, 2016 [hereinafter Answer], 2 Appeal 2016-004510 Application 13/607,005 that the slope of curve 120 “is a ratio of voltage (U) over speed which is increasing proportionally.” Answer 4 (citing Abolhassani 139, Fig. 6). In the Reply Brief,6 Appellant responded to the Examiner’s finding as follows: [T]he Examiner and the [Appellant] disagree as to whether Fig ure 6 of Abolhassanni, which is reproduced in the Answer, dis closes “the torque remains constant below rated speed as the speed and voltage increase proportionately.” If the speed and the voltage increase proportionately, then the ratio of the voltage over the speed should be constant. However, the curve the Ex aminer points to in Figure 6 shows that the ratio increases stead ily as speed increases. Figure 6, therefore, shows that the speed and the voltage do not increase proportionately below the rated speed. Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added). In our Decision, we stated that this argument did not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, because by a preponderance of the evidence, curve U in Abolhassani’s Figure 6 is not ratio of voltage over speed, but a voltage that increases proportionately with speed. See Decision 6—7. In the Request, Appellant newly argues that [although U in Figure 6 does refer to a voltage, it does not refer to an input voltage of the inverter as specified in the claims. In stead, the quantity U in Figure 6 refers to the phase voltage of the motor. (Abolhassani, [paragraph [0039].) The Input [sic] volt age of the inverter in Abolhassani would be the DC voltage of battery 22. In claim 1 [,] the ratio is between the speed and the input voltage of the inverter. The speed and voltage of Figure 6 do not increase proportionately according to this ratio. Request 2. 6 Reply Brief, Mar. 28, 2016 [hereinafter Reply Br.]. 3 Appeal 2016-004510 Application 13/607,005 In a request for rehearing, newly raised arguments are not permitted unless (1) they are based upon recent relevant case law, (2) they are responding to a designated new ground of rejection by the Board, or (3) they are arguing that the Board’s decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a) (2016). Appellant’s argument was not presented in the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief, and it is not within the categories of new arguments allowed by 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(2)-(4). The argument, therefore, is untimely, and we do not consider its merits. Because Appellant does not otherwise raise any argument that we have misapprehended or overlooked any point in our decision, the Request for Rehearing is denied. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016). DENIED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation