Ex Parte Skaff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12604046 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/604,046 10/22/2009
28395 7590 05/03/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ryan J. Skaff
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.
81195750 7769
EXAMINER
TERRELL, EMILY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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
Exparte RYAN J. SKAFF, DEREK HARTL, PAUL STEPHEN BRYAN,
ANGELA L. WATSON, and DAVID L. WATSON
Appeal2014-007465
Application 12/604,046
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-9, 11, and 17-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 10 and
12-16 are cancelled. (Br. 4.)
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. (Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-007465
Application 12/604,046
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates to ... displaying information
relating to the operation of a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) and, more
particularly, to ... conveying to an operator how close the HEV is from
entering or exiting an electric vehicle (EV) mode." (Spec. 1: 6-11.) Claims
1, 9, and 17, which are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A vehicle system comprising:
a display including:
at least one first threshold associated with a plurality of
engine-on reasons, and
a plurality of indicators, each corresponding to a different
engine-on reason; and
a controller that determines a value associated with each
engine-on reason and instructs the display to display each indicator
based on its associated value;
wherein the first threshold indicates the value for each engine-
on reason that causes an engine to tum on.
9. A display comprising:
a plurality of indicators, each indicative of a value associated
with an engine-on reason; and
at least one threshold associated with each indicator that
indicates a threshold value at which an engine transitions from off to
on;
wherein the indicators change color based upon their proximity
to the at least one threshold.
17. A method comprising:
acquiring data for one or more vehicle operating parameters
associated with a plurality of engine-on reasons;
calculating a value corresponding to each engine-on reason
based on the vehicle operating parameters; and
2
Appeal2014-007465
Application 12/604,046
displaying an indicator for each engine-on reason indicating the
value and at least one threshold for the plurality of engine-on reasons
corresponding with an engine on/off transition.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Lo US 6,600,413 Bl July 29, 2003
Komatsu et al. US 2009/0125173 Al May 14, 2009
("Komatsu")
Goda US 2011/0202210 Al Aug. 18, 2011
Watanabe et al. US 8,207,838 B2 June 26, 2012
("Watanabe")
Claims 1, 4, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Komatsu. (See Ans. 3-5.)
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Komatsu and Lo. (See Ans. 5-8.)
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komatsu and Goda. (See Ans. 8.)
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komatsu and Watanabe. (See Ans. 9.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Amended
Appeal Brief ("Br." filed Mar. 6, 2014)2 and the Specification ("Spec." filed
Oct. 22, 2009) for the positions of Appellants, and the Final Office Action
("Final Act." mailed July 30, 2013) and Answer ("Ans." mailed Apr. 22,
2014) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Brief have not
2 The Appeal Brief filed December 30, 2013, has not been considered
because it is superseded by the Amended Appeal Brief.
3
Appeal2014-007465
Application 12/604,046
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUES
The dispositive issues presented by Appellants' contentions3 are as
follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding Komatsu discloses "a display
including: at least one first threshold associated with a plurality of engine-
on reasons, ... wherein the first threshold indicates the value for each
engine-on reason that causes an engine to tum on," as recited in claim 1?
Does the Examiner err in finding Komatsu discloses "displaying an
indicator for each engine-on reason indicating the value and at least one
threshold for the plurality of engine-on reasons corresponding with an
engine on/off transition," as recited in claim 17?
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Komatsu and Lo
teaches or suggests "the indicators change color based upon their proximity
to the at least one threshold," as recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants contend as follows:
Independent claim 1 is directed to a vehicle system
comprising a display including "at least one first threshold
associated with a plurality of engine-on reasons" and "a plurality
3 Appellants' contentions present additional issues. However, because the
identified issues are dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional
issues.
4
Appeal2014-007465
Application 12/604,046
of indicators, each corresponding to a different engine-on
reason." Komatsu does not disclose at least the aforementioned
feature of "at least one first threshold associated with a plurality
of engine-on reasons." Rather, each "threshold" in Komatsu, as
applied by the Examiner, corresponds to a single "engine-on
reason."
(Br. 4.) We agree with the Appellants.
Claim 1 recites "at least one first threshold associated with a plurality
of engine-on reasons," and also recites that "the first threshold indicates the
value for each engine-on reason that causes [the] engine to tum on."
(Emphases added.) We conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of
these claim recitations requires that each of the displayed "first threshold[s]"
indicate the tum-on value for each engine-on reason. This claim
construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the language and is not
inconsistent with Appellants' Specification (see, e.g., Spec. Figs. 4a-b (item
110).) In the passages of Komatsu relied on by the Examiner, Komatsu
teaches a threshold 114 associated with a speed indicator 110 and a separate
threshold 124 associated with a power indicator 120. (See Komatsu Fig. 5.)
Although Komatsu's thresholds 114 and 124 are encompassed by "at least
one first threshold associated with a plurality of engine-on reasons," neither
of Komatsu's thresholds (i.e., "first threshold[s]") "indicates the value for
each engine-on reason that causes an engine to tum on" (emphasis added), as
recited in claim 1. (See id.)
The passages of Komatsu relied on by the Examiner (see Ans. 3--4
(citing Komatsu i-fi-148, 71, 73, Figs. 5---6), 11-12 (additionally citing
Komatsu i-fi-1 7 6-77)) do not show "each and every element as set forth in the
claim ... , either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference," Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
5
Appeal2014-007465
Application 12/604,046
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987), "arranged as in the claim under review," Jn re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990), "in as complete detail as is contained in
the ... claim," Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). Accordingly we find the cited passages do not anticipate claim
1.
Appellants demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly,
we decline to sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claims 2-8, which depend
from claim 1.
Claim 17
Appellants argue claim 17 together with claim 1. (See Br. 4, 5.)
However, claim 17 recites "displaying an indicator for each engine-on
reason indicating the value and at least one threshold for the plurality of
engine-on reasons corresponding with an engine on/off transition."
(Emphasis added.) Unlike claim 1, claim 17 does not recite that a threshold
indicates the on/off transition for each of the plurality of engine-on reasons.
Accordingly, in addition to Appellants' preferred embodiment (see Spec.
Figs. 4a-b ), the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 17 encompasses
a plurality of engine-on reason indicators each having a threshold, such as
disclosed by Komatsu (see Komatsu Fig. 5).
Appellants do not demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 17.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 and claim 18, which
depends from claim 17 and is not separately argued with particularity (see
Br. 5).
6
Appeal2014-007465
Application 12/604,046
Claim 9
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 2, 9, and 19 together,4
referring principally to the recitations of claim 2. (See Br. 6-7.) We
consider Appellants' arguments regarding claim 2 as they apply to the
recitations of claim 9.
The Examiner relies on Komatsu to teach all the limitations of claim 9
except "the indicators change color based upon their proximity to the at least
one threshold" (the "color change limitation"). (See Ans. 6-7 (citing
Komatsu i-fi-166, 73, 76-77).) The Examiner relies on Lo to teach the color
change limitation. (Ans. 7 (citing Lo col. 3, 11. 31--44), 12-13 (additionally
citing Lo Figs. 3a-b).)
Appellants contend "lamps on [Lo' s] indicator lighting unit
collectively only change color when vehicle efficiency transitions from one
efficiency state to another efficiency state, not based upon the current
efficiency's proximity to a threshold or boundary between efficiency states."
(Br. 7 (discussing Lo col. 31--44, Fig. 3b ). ) We are not persuaded of error.
As described by Appellants, Lo teaches an indicator that changes
color from yellow, indicating low efficiency, to green, indicating medium
efficiency, to blue, indicating high efficiency. (Br. 6-7; see Lo Fig. 3b.) In
other words, Lo teaches an indicator that changes color based on the
proximity of the current efficiency state to maximum efficiency, i.e., to a
threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have learned from Lo to
change indicator colors to provide notifications to a driver of increasing or
decreasing proximity to a value. (Cf Ans. 6.)
4 We decline to sustain the rejection of claim 2 because of its dependency
from claim 1. (See supra.)
7
Appeal2014-007465
Application 12/604,046
Appellants do not persuasively demonstrate error in the rejection of
claim 9. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 and claim 11,
which depends from claim 9 and is not separately argued with particularity
(see Br. 7). Claim 19, which is argued together with claim 9, depends from
claim 17 through claim 18. For the reasons set forth for claim 9 as well as
those set forth supra for claim 17, we sustain the rejections of claim 19 and
claim 20, which depends from claim 19 and is not separately argued with
particularity (see id.)
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9, 11, and 17-20 is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 is reversed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8