Ex Parte Sponheimer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 2017

13893558 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2017)

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. 13/893,558 05/14/2013 Arnulf Sponheimer 83392912 7536 28866 7590 06/28/2017 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR 720 WATER STREET TOLEDO, OH 43604 EXAMINER SHUDY, ANGELINA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2017 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 @ mstfirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Appeal 2016-003459 Application 13/893,558 Technology Center 3600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-003459 Application 13/893,558 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—17, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The application is directed to “[a] method for controlling a vehicle driveline.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative: 1. A method for controlling a vehicle driveline, comprising: providing at least one front motor, having a first rated torque, powering front axle wheels, and at least one rear motor, having a second rated torque different from the first rated torque, powering rear axle wheels; transmitting power to the front or rear axle wheels based upon the front or rear motor having a lowest current power loss based upon demanded wheel torque and a wheel speed. THE REJECTION Claims 1—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Imaseki et al. (US 5,453,930; issued Sept. 26, 1995). (See Final Act. 4—7.) 1 The named inventors are Amulf Sponheimer, Monika Derflinger, Roger Graaf, and Marc Simon. 2 Appeal 2016-003459 Application 13/893,558 ANALYSIS Appellant describes, and recites in claim 1, a method for controlling a vehicle driveline that: (a) provides at least one front motor with a first rated torque for powering front axle wheels; (b) provides at least one rear motor with a second rated torque that differs from the first for powering rear axle wheels; and (c) transmits power to the front or rear axle wheels “based upon the front or rear motor having a lowest current power loss based upon demanded wheel torque and a wheel speed.” In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Imaseki discloses the front and rear motors of different torques, citing the embodiments shown in Figures 1 and 5. (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner further finds that Imaseki discloses transmitting power to the front or rear based upon the motor “having a lowest current power loss based upon demanded wheel torque and a wheel speed” in column 20, which states, in part To enhance the motor efficiency, the controller controls the motors in such a manner as to mainly drive one of the motors being kept in a lower load state than the other with the maximum output torque Tmax, and to subsidiarily drive the other motor with the under-torque (T-Tmax)- (Final Act. 5.) Quoting Net Money IN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008), Appellant argues claim 1 is not anticipated by Imaseki because “the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four comers of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” (App. Br. 7—8.) Appellant asserts that column 20 of Imaseki “is only discussing the third embodiment, where Imaseki specifically states that the motors have identical ratings,” that “the operation of the vehicle 3 Appeal 2016-003459 Application 13/893,558 discussed there is based on the motors having this identical rating,” and that this “arrangement is irrelevant to independent claims 1 and 7, which specifically recite motor(s) powering the front axle wheels having different rated torques from motor(s) powering the rear axle wheels.” (Reply Br. 2—3, emphasis omitted.) We agree. Imaseki describes a “first embodiment” (shown in Figure 1) with a high power front motor (reference number 4) and a low power rear motor (reference number 5). (Imaseki 7:41—12:14.) It then describes a “second embodiment” (shown in Figure 5) in which “two motors [reference numbers 4A and 5A] which respectively generate a substantially same power are utilized as left- and right-wheel drive motors.” {Id. at 12:15—16:45.) The second embodiment also contemplates that the first embodiment may be “combined with the second embodiment” such that “the high-power [front] motor may be replaced with the same middle-power motors [reference numbers 4B and 5B] to drive the front-left and front-right wheels independently of each other.” {Id. at 16:46—56.) Imaseki next describes a third embodiment, shown in Figure 8, which “is different from the first embodiment in that two different motors 4 and 5 are replaced with two identical rated motors 4B and 5B and the two identical rated motors are controlled in consideration of load applied to each of the motors 4B and 5B.” (Imaseki 17:1—5, emphasis omitted.) The reference describes how “it is advantageous to drivingly control the same rated motors employed in the wheel motor drive system of the third embodiment, in consideration of the motor load state of the employed motors, so as to keep the power loss of each motor at minimum and to enhance the motor efficiency.” (Imaseki 20:35^40.) 4 Appeal 2016-003459 Application 13/893,558 Imaseki’s first and second embodiments do not anticipate because they do not include the claimed control method, and the third embodiment does not anticipate because the control method is applied to “identical rated motors” (Imaseki 17:1—52), not motors with different torques. “[I]t is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, 545 at 1371. Because Imaseki does not “disclose[] within the four comers of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed” and, therefore, “cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Id. For this reason, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—17.3 Because this issue is fully dispositive, we do not reach Appellant’s other arguments. DECISION The Section 102(a) rejection of claims 1—17 is reversed. REVERSED 2 See also Imaseki 19:43—44 (“the two identical rated motors 4B and 5B”); id. at 20:7—8 (“the same rated motors 4B and 5B utilized in the third embodiment”). 3 We do not consider, because the issue is not before us, whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious in view of Imaseki’s teachings. 5