Ex Parte MINATOYA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2019

13410337 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/410,337 03/02/2012
32294 7590 01/15/2019
Squire PB (NV A/DC Office)
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14THFLOOR
VIENNA, VA 22182-6212
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KeisukeMINATOYA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
059278.00062 9263
EXAMINER
LAGUARDA,GONZALO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2019 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):
IPGENERAL TYC@SQUIREpb.COM
SONIA.WHITNEY@SQUIREpb.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEISUKE MINATOYA, ATSUSHI IZUMIURA,
TADA YOSHI SASAKI, SHIGETAKA KURODA,
and MAHITO SHIKAMA 1
Appeal2017-001541
Application 13/410,337
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Keisuke Minatoya et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Honda Motor Co. is identified as the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-001541
Application 13/410,337
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to a misfire detecting apparatus and
method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A misfire detecting apparatus for an internal combustion
engine, having engine rotational speed parameter detecting
means for detecting an engine rotational speed parameter
indicative of a rotational speed of said engine of which
an output shaft is connected via a torsion element to an input
shaft of a transmission mechanism, and detecting a misfire of
said engine based on the detected engine rotational speed
parameter, said misfire detecting apparatus comprising:
transmission rotational speed parameter detecting means for
detecting a transmission rotational speed parameter indicative
of a rotational speed of said input shaft of said transmission
mechanism;
modifying means for calculating a modified engine rotational
speed parameter by modifying the detected engine rotational
speed parameter based on the transmission rotational speed
parameter, an engine rotation moment on the input side of said
torsion element, and a transmission rotation moment on the
output side of said torsion element;
correcting means for calculating, at predetermined crank angles,
an average change amount of the modified rotational speed
parameter in a predetermined period, and an inertia speed
changing component which is generated with rotation of said
engine, and further calculating a corrected rotational speed
parameter by correcting the modified rotational speed
parameter according to the average change amount and the
inertia speed changing component;
relative speed parameter calculating means for calculating a
relative speed parameter according to a difference between a
reference value and the corrected rotational speed parameter,
the reference value being the corrected rotational speed
2
Appeal2017-001541
Application 13/410,337
parameter corresponding to the rotational speed parameter
which is detected at a reference timing at which a piston of a
cylinder, which is subjected to the misfire determination, is
positioned in the vicinity of the compression top dead center;
determination parameter calculating means for calculating a
determination parameter by integrating the relative speed
parameter for an integration period corresponding to 720/N
degrees of the crank angle ("N" is a number of cylinders of said
engine);
determining means for performing a misfire determination
based on the determination parameter; and
providing means for providing an indication of normal or
abnormal combustion of the internal combustion engine based
on the misfire determination,
wherein the reference timing and a start timing of the
integration period are set according to the ignition timing of
said engine, and
wherein said modifying means calculates the modified engine
rotational speed parameter using the following equations (A)
and (B):
OMG = KRixOMGCRK + (1 - KRI)xOMGMAIN (A)
KRI = ICRK/(ICRK + IMAIN) (B)
where "OMG" is the modified engine rotational speed
parameter, "OMGCRK" is the detected engine rotational speed
parameter, "OMGMAIN" is the detected transmission
rotational speed parameter, "KRI" is an inertia moment ratio
given by the equation (B), "ICRK" is the engine rotation
moment, and "IMAIN" is the transmission rotation moment.
3
Appeal2017-001541
Application 13/410,337
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as constituting non-
statutory subject matter, to wit, not significantly more than an abstract idea;
and
(ii) claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Citron (US 5,699,252, issued Dec. 16, 1997) in view ofDa (US
6,600,988 Bl, issued July 29, 2003).
ANALYSIS
35 us.c. § 101
The Examiner takes the position that "[t]he claims is/are directed to
the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship or formula." Final Act. 3.
The entire analysis set forth in the rejection is as follows:
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the
claim( s) other than the abstract idea per se amount( s) to no
more than: recitation of generic computer structure that serves
to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities previously known to the
pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim
element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform
the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract
idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than
the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter.
Id. at 3--4.
In response to Appellants' arguments traversing the Examiner's
position, the Examiner posits that:
4
Appeal2017-001541
Application 13/410,337
[T]he claims are drawn specifically to the detection of misfire
and no changing of the actual system beyond merely an
indication that it has occurred. As such these claims would
affect no substantive change and so does not overcome the 101
rejection .... More specifically the applicants argue that
accurate detection is important to an engine system, what is
missing from the arguments is not only accurate detection but
mitigation. The claims are only drawn to the detection with no
change in the system to respond to the adverse effects that the
applicant argues occur with misfire.
Final Act. 13.
In the Answer, the Examiner again directs attention to the fact that the
claims do not require any particular action or response to the detection of a
misfire, as somehow being a factor in determining that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea, without significantly more, stating:
and
The claims of this system do nothing to mitigate misfire
making the limitations of the claims extra solution activity.
The 101 rejection requires "significantly more" to be
done with the apparatus or method than just the sum of their
parts. As pointed out in the rejection using a computer and
mathematical equations is a known way to detect misfire and
the reference matches those limitations. Also the claims are
drawn specifically to the detection of misfire and no changing
of the actual system beyond merely an indication that it has
occurred, and this indication is only internal to the computer
which does not output these results. As such these claims would
affect no substantive change and so does not overcome the 101
rejection.
Ans. 2, 3--4.
The Examiner's initial analysis, while correctly stating the standard
for analyzing a claim to determine whether it is directed to non-statutory
subject matter, does not address the particular claim limitations making up
5
Appeal2017-001541
Application 13/410,337
the claims as a whole, nor explain why those limitations are considered
either part of the abstract idea, or, if not, why they are regarded as not
providing significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, we find this
to be an insufficient basis on which to sustain the rejection. See Alice Corp.
Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 2359---60 (2014) (under
step two, the claims must be analyzed individually (separately) and as an
ordered combination ( as a who le) to determine whether any additional
elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application);
see also In re Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 8 81 F .3 d 13 60, 13 68 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(summary judgment is appropriate under step two of Alice only when there
is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the claim element or
claimed ordered combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional
to a skilled artisan in the relevant field); Reply Br. 8-9 (arguing that ordered
arrangement of claim elements achieves a technical improvement); Appeal
Br. 13-19) ( arguing that claim limitations individually and in combination
improve existing misfire detection).
The additional focus on what the claims do not include, i.e., a means
or step for mitigating a detected misfire, also does not provide us with a
basis for sustaining the rejection. We are not aware of any precedent
requiring the type of additional step that the Examiner appears to believe to
be necessary to bring the claims within the realm of statutory subject matter.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not
sustained.
35 US.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner appears to recognize that neither Citron nor Da
discloses the particular manner by which the claimed modifying means
6
Appeal2017-001541
Application 13/410,337
determines the value of the claimed "modified engine rotational speed
parameter," in stating:
(Equations found in columns 6-10 are found to be equivalent
subject matter. The requirement for overcoming, or not being
obvious, is that the parts must be greater as a whole (synergism)
(See MPEP 716.02(a)).
The combination of an engine speed sensor with a
computer is a known structure. The known benefit of computers
for quick calculations and actuation of a system is an obvious,
known and implemented technique. The programming of
computers with mathematical equations is a necessity. The cited
reference teaches a program with its chosen mathematical
relationship. The ability to develop your own mathematical
relationship is an obvious optimization that would be obvious to
try with the finite variables to consider, that has predictable
solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP
2143. As such this claim is seen to be an obvious variant).
Final Act. 6-7 ( emphasis omitted).
Responding to Appellants' arguments that Citron fails to provide any
guidance that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to determine
that the occurrence of engine misfire could be determined using a modified
engine rotational speed parameter calculated in the manner claimed, the
Examiner states that, "the obviousness of the formulas when the prior art is
considering similar variables is also not overcome because these formulas
are purely abstract and so do not have patentable weight." Ans. 4; see also
id. at 5.
The Examiner provides no underlying evidence that supports the
position that the claimed approach to determining the occurrence of misfire
would have been an obvious optimization or would have been obvious to try,
or that the equations disclosed in Citron are equivalent subject matter to the
claimed equations and thereby render the claimed equations obvious. We
7
Appeal2017-001541
Application 13/410,337
are further unaware of any precedent that, even if the Examiner is correct
that the equations recited in the claims for obtaining a modified engine
rotational speed parameter are abstract ideas, they are to be afforded no
patentable weight on that basis, particularly where the Examiner also finds
that programming computers with mathematical equations is a necessity.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 as being obvious
over Citron and Da.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and
§ 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
8