Ex Parte SCHULZ et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2018

14303170 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/303,170 06/12/2014
24972 7590 10/31/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Udo SCHULZ
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.
BOSC.P8528US/l 1603661 5907
EXAMINER
JHA, ABDHESH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2018 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteUDO SCHULZ, CHRISTIAN STAENGLE,
BASTIAN BISCHOFF, JOCHEN PFLUEGER, and
OLIVER DIETER KOLLER
Appeal 2017-011768
Application 14/303, 170
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest in the present appeal is ROBERT BOSCH
GmbH of Stuttgart in the Federal Republic of Germany, which is the
assignee of the entire right, title and interest in and to the present
application." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-011768
Application 14/303, 170
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention "relates to a method for the creation of a
strategy for operating a motor vehicle based on a damage prognosis."
(Spec. 2, 11. 27-29.)
Independent Claims on Appeal
1. A method for operating a motor vehicle having at least one
component which is subject to an operation-dependent aging
process, the method comprising:
determining a connection between a load profile of the at
least one component and a damage resulting therefrom;
estimating damage of the at least one component from
the determined connection;
setting an operating strategy for operating the motor
vehicle based on the estimated damage of the at least one
component, wherein in an operating mode, the operating
strategy is set such that the damage of the at least one
component accelerates; and
operating the motor vehicle in accordance with the
operating strategy.
13. A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer
program for operating a motor vehicle having at least one
component which is subject to an operation-dependent aging
process, the computer program, when executed on a processor,
causing the processor to perform the steps of:
determining a connection between a load profile of the at
least one component and a damage resulting therefrom is
determined;
estimating damage of the at least one component from
the determined connection;
setting an operating strategy for operating the motor
vehicle based on the estimated damage of the at least one
component, wherein in an operating mode, the operating
strategy is set such that the damage of the at least one
component accelerates; and
operating the motor vehicle in accordance with the
operating strategy.
2
Appeal2017-011768
Application 14/303, 170
Rejections2
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 8, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art ("AP A") 3 and Schoeggl. 4 (Final
Action 5.)
The Examiner rejects claims 5-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the AP A, Schoeggl, and Tyron. 5 (Final Action 9.)
The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the APA, Schoeggl, and Official Notice. 6 (Final
Action 12.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "[a] method for operating a motor vehicle
having at least one component which is subject to an operation-dependent
aging process." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 13 recites "a
computer program" causing the performance of the steps of such a method.
(Id.) The Examiner determines that the claimed method would have been
obvious "in view of the prior art as a whole" (Final Action 6); and the
2 The Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (see Final Action 2--4)
have been withdrawn (see Answer 3).
3 "In the field of automotive technology," certain components "are subject to
an aging process which is a function of the operating mode of the motor
vehicle and therefore also the resultant service life of the respective
component." (Spec. 1, 11. 20, 24--27.)
4 US 2009/0118897 Al, published May 7, 2009.
5 US 2003/0004679 Al, published January 2, 2003.
6 "It is well known in the art that the damage increases as the time
increases." (Final Action 13.)
3
Appeal2017-011768
Application 14/303, 170
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in making this determination (see
Appeal Br. 7-9; see also Reply Br. 1-3).
As discussed below, we are not persuaded by the Appellants' position.
We are unpersuaded because the Appellants' arguments focus on the prior
art's teachings about one particular scenario, as opposed to what the prior
art, as a whole, would impart to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 rests upon
Schoeggl teaching a method of operating a motor vehicle which takes into
consideration the residual service life of a particular component. (See Final
Action 6.) Schoeggl is concerned with the requirement "in racing sports to
adapt components in an extremely precise way to the expected loads."
(Schoeggl ,r 5.) Schoeggl teaches that, in a car-racing situation, "[t]he
optimal design of the individual components of the engine is given when the
service life of the individual components has decreased to zero after the last
lap." (Id.) To this end, Schoeggl's method correlates the current residual
service life of a component to the remaining laps in a race, by providing an
assessment statement such as "if the manner of driving remains the same
like in the last five laps, component x has a residual service life of 7.2 laps."
(Id. ,I 17.)
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite the step of "setting an operating
strategy for operating the motor vehicle based on the estimated damage of
the at least one component." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Schoeggl discusses
a specific scenario in which "30 laps" are still remaining in a race, and
"under the given conditions the expected residual service life" of a certain
component "will only be 25 laps." (Schoeggl ,r 24.) In this scenario,
"measures" are taken to "raise the residual service life" of this component to
4
Appeal2017-011768
Application 14/303, 170
correspond to 30 laps. (Id.) For example, "[t]he maximum engine speed can
be reduced accordingly in order to raise the residual service life to the
required value" of "30 laps." (Id.) Thus, in this particular scenario,
Schoeggl sets an operating strategy ( e.g., the reduction of maximum engine
speed) for operating the race car based on the estimated residual service life
(25 laps) of the component.
Independent claims 1 and 13 further recite that "the operating strategy
is set such that the damage of the at least one component accelerates."
(Appeal Br., Claims App., emphasis added.) According to the Appellants, in
the particular scenario discussed above, Schoeggl sets "an operating strategy
to reduce damage to a component." (Id. at 8.) In other words, when
Schoeggl reduces the race car's maximum engine speed to extend the
component's residual service life from 25 laps to 30 laps, the operating
strategy is set such that the damage of the component decelerates. We
agree with the Appellants that Schoeggl does not teach that, in this particular
scenario, the operating strategy should be set such that the damage of the
component accelerates, rather than decelerates. (See Reply Br. 1-3.)
But we agree with the Examiner that Schoeggl teaches that, in a
different scenario, an operating strategy should be set such that the damage
of the component accelerates. (See Final Action 6.) As indicated above,
Schoeggl teaches that, in a racing situation, "[t]he optimal design of the
individual components of the engine is given when the service life of the
individual components has decreased to zero after the last lap." (Schoeggl
,r 5.) Thus, if 20 laps are still remaining in a race, and the expected residual
service life of a certain component is 25 laps, Schoeggl teaches an operating
strategy such that the residual service life of this component approaches zero
5
Appeal2017-011768
Application 14/303, 170
after the last (20th) lap. In other words, Schoeggl teaches setting an
operating strategy such that the damage of the component accelerates and
"fails earlier" than 25 laps. (Answer 5.) For example, the maximum engine
speed could be increased to allow the racecar to travel faster.
Thus, we are unpersuaded by the Appellants' position that the
Examiner errs in determining that the method steps recited in independent
claims 1 and 13 would have been obvious over the prior art. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 7
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7 Claims 2-12 depend directly or ultimately from independent claim 1, and
the Appellants do not argue these dependent claims separately. (See Appeal
Br. 7-9.)
6