Ex Parte Suhocki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2018

12564072 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/564,072
14200 7590
M & G Eaton Corp
Merchant & Gould
FILING DATE
09/22/2009
05/30/2018
P.O. BOX 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Suhocki
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.
15720.0230US01/08-MAR-360 7619
EXAMINER
SHEPPARD, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2018 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):
US PTO 14200@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER SUHOCKI
Appeal2017-008841
Application 12/564,072
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4--10, 12, 15-32, 34, 35, and 37--41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-008841
Application 12/564,072
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods of controlling an engine during
transient operating conditions. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of controlling a diesel engine through a
mechanically driven supercharger coupled to a crank shaft of
the engine for controlling a flow of air to the engine, the
method comprising:
defining a steady state operating condition of the engine;
monitoring an operating parameter of the engine;
detecting when the engine is operating outside of the
steady state operating condition in a transient operating
condition;
controlling a fuel/air mixture during operation of the
engine in the transient operating condition by:
adjusting first a flow of air from the supercharger
to the engine upon detection of the engine in the transient
operating condition while not adjusting a fuel input to the
engine, wherein the supercharger is powered by torque
mechanically transferred from the crankshaft of the
engine and does not rely on torque generated by exhaust
that has been output from the engine,
adjusting second the fuel input to the engine after
adjusting the flow of air from the supercharger to the
engine; and
supplying intake air to the engine from a turbocharger
during the steady state operating condition, the turbocharger
being driven by exhaust from the engine.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4--10, 12, 15, 19--23, 34, 35, and 37--41 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue (US Pat. Pub. No.
2009/0019852; Jan. 22, 2009) and Lofgren (US Pat. No. 8,522,550 B2; Sept.
3, 2013).
2
Appeal2017-008841
Application 12/564,072
Claims 16, 17, and 24 are rejected under U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Inoue, Lofgren, and Rollinger (US Pat Pub. No.
2007/0131206 Al; June 14, 2007).
Claims 18 and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Inoue, Lofgren, Rollinger, and Ohyama (US Pat. No.
6,058,348; May 2, 2000).
OPINION
The main issue raised by Appellant in this appeal is whether
Inoue[1] et al. fail to teach or suggest "adjusting first a flow of
air from the supercharger to the engine upon detection of the
engine in the transient operating condition while not adjusting a
fuel input to the engine," and "adjusting second the fuel input to
the engine after adjusting the flow of air from the supercharger
to the engine."
App. Br. 21. A version of the argued limitation appears in all independent
claims before us.
Appellant does not provide a precise analysis of the specific portions
of Inoue (paras. 54, 58) cited by the Examiner to satisfy this limitation so as
to inform us with particularity as to the supposed deficiencies in the
Examiner's rejections. As best we can ascertain, Appellant's position is
premised on the absence of identical descriptive language in Inoue.
However, a fundamental principle in a prior-art analysis is that the use of
identical language in the prior art is not required to satisfy the limitations of
the claims. In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 956 (CCPA 1962) ("[I]t is
1 Appellant also argues that Lofgren does not disclose this feature. App. Br.
22. However, this argument is not germane to the rejection which relies on
Inoue for this feature. Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2017-008841
Application 12/564,072
unlikely that independent specification writers will use identical language in
describing even identical embodiments of an invention."); In re Neugebauer,
330 F.2d 353,356 n.4 (CCPA 1964) ("In the construction of words, not the
mere words, but the thing and the meaning, are to be inquired after.").
We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 3) that Inoue's disclosure of
"the compressor 7 is activated" is reasonably regarded as satisfying the
"adjusting ... a flow of air from the supercharger." We also agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 3) that Inoue's disclosure that such activation is "before ...
increases in fuel" ( emphasis partially omitted), is reasonably regarded as
"adjusting first a flow of air from the supercharger," and "while not,"
"adjusting second ... fuel input." App. Br. 21.
Appellant shifts the focus of the argument above to the "upon
detection of a transient condition" language in the Reply Brief, 2 again
without any specific analysis of the portion of Inoue relied on by the
Examiner. Reply Br. 3. We agree with the Examiner that, particularly in
light ofinoue's background discussion (Ans. 3--4 (citing Inoue, paras. 3, 6))
Inoue' s disclosure that "operating the accelerator" is a condition precedent
to the above described air adjustment (Inoue, para. 58), is reasonably
regarded as disclosing that the air flow adjustment prior to increasing fuel in
Inoue is made "upon detection of the engine in the transient operating
condition." Appellant's own Specification (para. 2) identifies "accelerating
from a low engine speed" as an example of a transient operating condition.
We are not informed of any error in the Examiner's actions.
2 Appellant also argues a lack of motivation to combine Inoue and Lofgren
(Reply Br. 2) without addressing the specific basis articulated by the
Examiner for proposing to do so (Final Act. 5). This argument is untimely
under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2).
4
Appeal2017-008841
Application 12/564,072
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5