Ex Parte Noll

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2012

11557710 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

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. 11/557,710 11/08/2006 Markus Noll GP-307636-GAPD-CHE 1991 65798 7590 11/29/2012 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 200 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER LE, DAVID D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3655 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARKUS NOLL ____________ Appeal 2011-000262 Application 11/557,710 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schmitz (US 6,573,675 B2, iss. Jun. 3, 2003). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-000262 Application 11/557,710 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 9, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and reproduced below. 1. A system for preventing the speed of an electrical vehicle from increasing, said system comprising: an electric traction motor that is able to provide regenerative braking to the vehicle; and a controller for controlling the electric traction motor to prevent the speed of the vehicle from increasing, said controller being responsive to a vehicle speed signal and an enable signal, said controller comparing the speed signal to a speed set-point and providing a torque command that causes the traction motor to provide regenerative braking torque to the vehicle to prevent the speed of the vehicle from increasing above the speed set- point. OPINION Claims 1-13 Claim 1 recites a system for preventing the speed of an electrical vehicle from increasing including a “controller comparing the speed signal to a speed set-point and providing a torque command that causes the traction motor to provide regenerative braking torque to the vehicle to prevent the speed of the vehicle from increasing above the speed set-point.” App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added). Similarly, claim 9 recites a system including a “controller comparing the vehicle speed signal to the speed set point when the controller is receiving the enable signal, and providing a torque command that causes the traction motor to provide regenerative braking torque to the vehicle to prevent the speed of the vehicle from Appeal 2011-000262 Application 11/557,710 3 increasing above the speed set point.” App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Schmitz discloses a hybrid vehicle system “wherein a controller compares the speed signal to a speed set-point.” Ans. 3-4. More specifically, the Examiner finds Schmitz’s “set vehicle[] cruising speed” reads on the claimed speed set-point. Ans. 4, 5, 7 (citing Schmitz, col. 7, ll. 20-25). The Appellant contends that the “vehicle cruising speed” of Schmitz, by itself, does not anticipate comparing a vehicle speed signal to a speed set- point because there is no comparison of the “vehicle cruising speed” to a vehicle speed signal or any other value. App. Br. 16, see Reply Br. 2. Schmitz discloses the relationship between the power generated, the power stored, and the power consumed over time, by a series hybrid electric vehicle. Col. 6, ll. 58-60, fig. 5. Schmitz does not disclose that the vehicle’s cruising speed, found by the Examiner to be the speed set-point, is compared to a speed signal by the electronic control unit (ECU) or by any other controller. Instead, Schmitz discloses that the ECU controls the power generated during maintenance of the cruising speed and during regenerative braking (col. 7, ll. 64-66). While Schmitz discloses that regenerative braking occurs when the vehicle travels downhill at a constant speed (col. 7, ll. 49-52), Schmitz does not disclose that the ECU or any other controller does a comparison of the vehicle cruising speed to the constant speed or any other speed signal in order to apply regenerative braking so as not to exceed the vehicle cruising speed. In sum, the Examiner has not explained how Schmitz’s ECU or any other controller compares the vehicle cruising speed to a different vehicle Appeal 2011-000262 Application 11/557,710 4 speed signal. As such, the Examiner’s finding that Schmitz’s vehicle cruising speed corresponds to comparing a speed signal to a speed set-point is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 9 as anticipated by Schmitz is not sustained. Additionally, the rejection of claims 2-8 and 10-13, which depend from claims 1 and 9 respectively, are likewise not sustained. Claims 14-18 Claim 14 recites a method for preventing the speed of an electric vehicle from increasing, said method comprising “providing an enable signal only if predetermined criteria are met including that a brake pedal and an acceleration pedal of the vehicle are not being pressed.” App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added). The Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 requires evidence that Schmitz discloses, inter alia, providing an enable signal if a brake pedal is not being pressed. The Examiner finds that Schmitz’s pulse width modulation (PWM) signal is provided only if predetermined criteria are met, including a condition that a brake pedal is not pressed. Ans. 6. The Appellant correctly contends that Schmitz does not disclose “providing an enable signal only if a predetermined criteria are met including that a brake pedal and an acceleration pedal of the vehicle are not being pressed,” as recited claim 14. See App. Br. 14, see also App. Br. 17. Indeed, Schmitz does not mention using a brake pedal in any regard, and as a result, Schmitz does not expressly disclose providing the PWM signal only if the brake pedal is not being pressed. Instead, Schmitz discloses that a PWM signal is generated by comparing 3-phase reference values with a triangular wave signal which is Appeal 2011-000262 Application 11/557,710 5 input to the PWM inverters (col. 6, ll. 54-55). PWM inverters generate AC current from the DC current received from the battery array (col. 5, ll. 57- 59). As such, Schmitz does not disclose any relationship between the PWM signal and the position of the brake pedal. The Examiner also finds, albeit for the rejection of claim 9, that during regenerative braking, the brake pedal can be at a zero position “since the purpose of the regenerative braking is to limit the utilization of the vehicle brake pedal or to minimize vehicles braking action and convert the excess energy into storable energy for future use.” Ans. 5. However, the Examiner again references the PWM signal as the provided enabling signal. See Ans. 4. As explained above, we do not find any evidence that the PWM signal relates to the brake pedal. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that the PWM signal of Schmitz corresponds to “providing an enable signal only if predetermined criteria are met including that a brake pedal . . . of the vehicle [] not being pressed,” as recited in claim 14, is inadequately supported. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 14 as anticipated by Schmitz is not sustained. Additionally, the rejection of claims 15-18 which depend from claim 14, are likewise not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-18. REVERSED Klh