Ex Parte Sullivan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2016

13326988 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/326,988 12/15/2011
24938 7590 04/14/2016
FCA US LLC
CIMS 483-02-19
800 CHRYSLER DR EAST
AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-2757
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas M. Sullivan
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.
708599US1 3789
EXAMINER
GUGGER, SEAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2016 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):
chris.davenport@fcagroup.com
michelle.madak@fcagroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS M. SULLIVAN
Appeal2014-009979
Application 13/326,988
Technology Center 2800
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-20, all of the pending claims.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Chrysler Group LLC.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 13 and 14 have been canceled. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-009979
Application 13/326,988
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. An electronic control unit for increasing electrical
output from an alternator connected to a variable displacement
engine having a plurality of selectively controllable cylinders,
the electronic control unit adapted to:
determine whether the variable displacement engine 1s
idling;
evaluate a present electrical system load; and
when the present electrical system load exceeds a present
electrical output from the alternator while the variable
displacement engine is idling:
deactivate at least one of the plurality of cylinders; and
increase an idle speed of the variable displacement engine.
REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-12 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Strauss (US 6,883,495 Bl; issued Apr. 26,
2005) and Shei (US 2007/0131183 Al; published June 14, 2007). (Final
Act. 2-6.)3
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Strauss does not teach "increas[ing] an idle speed of
the variable displacement engine," as recited in claim 1. (See App. Br. 5-7.)
3 We understand the Examiner's reference to claim 14 in the summary
statement of the rejection (Final Act. 2) to be a typographical error because
that claim is not substantively addressed in the rejection and was previously
canceled. (See id. at 1 (listing the pending claims as claims 1-12 and 15-
20).)
2
Appeal2014-009979
Application 13/326,988
Specifically, Appellant argues "the system disclosed in Strauss is designed
to minimize idle speed - not increase idle speed." (Id. at 6.) Thus, Appellant
argues "one skilled in the art would understand that Strauss does not disclose
or suggest a system designed to increase idle speed of the engine when the
present electrical system load exceeds a present electrical output from the
alternator." (Id. at 7; see also Reply Br. 1-2.)
We disagree with Appellant. Strauss teaches an electronic control
unit ("ECU") for adaptively setting the engine idle speed "to a level that
takes into account the instantaneous power requirements of the various
system components and/or devices." (Strauss Abstract.) The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Strauss teaches "minimiz[ing] the engine speed while
maintaining enough engine speed to provide sufficient power to meet the
power requirements of the system." (Ans. 2 (citing App. Br. 6; Strauss
2:31-34, 4:58---64).) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that idle
speed can be increased to a minimum. (Id. at 3.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's citation to portions of Strauss
where the idle speed is decreased. (Reply Br. 2 (citing Strauss 5:21-53).)
Those portions of Strauss discuss an example where the idle speed is
decreased when the present electrical load is less than the present electrical
output from the alternator. (Strauss 5:23-36 (as an example, explaining that
alternator current output could be 2 amperes ("A") at a speed of 500 RPM,
but if 2A is more than needed at a particular instant, the engine idle speed
can be reduced).) Strauss, however, also teaches that its ECU adaptively
regulates the engine idle speed based on instantaneous (i.e., real-time
sampling of) power requirements. (See Strauss 3:56---64, 4:53---64.) Thus, in
addition to lowering idle speed when output from the alternator exceeds
3
Appeal2014-009979
Application 13/326,988
electrical load, Strauss at least suggests also increasing idle speed when
electrical load exceeds alternator output. Thus, we are unpersuaded of error
in the Examiner's finding that Strauss teaches or suggests "when the present
electrical system load exceeds a present electrical output from the alternator,
increase an idle speed of the engine."
Appellant further argues "[t]he Examiner's application of Shei fails to
cure the deficiencies of Strauss." (App. Br. 7.) This argument, however,
focuses again on Appellant's contention that Strauss does not teach
increasing engine idle speed. (Id. ("As noted above, the purpose of Strauss' s
system is to minimize engine speed during idling in order to reduce the
emission of noise and consumption of fuel.") (citing Strauss 1:31--40).) As
discussed above, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner's
findings regarding Strauss are deficient.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject claim 1, claim 12 argued together with claim 1 (App. Br. 5-7), and
claim 2-11 and 15-20 not argued separately (id. at 8).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-12 and 15-20 as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
AFFIRMED
4