Ex Parte Takeishi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 18, 2017

13027577 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 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. 13/027,577 02/15/2011 Hiroaki Takeishi GPK-2018-2648 7064 23117 7590 08/22/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER LAGUARDA, GONZALO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIROAKI TAKEISHI, TAKASHI SEND A, MITSUO HARA, and TAKANOBU KAWANO Appeal 2015-008261 Application 13/027,5771 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellants identify Denso Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-008261 Application 13/027,577 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A waste heat controller controlling a waste heat quantity of an engine, waste heat being a combustion energy other than kinetic energy, based on a required heat quantity in response to a heat-utilize requirement, comprising: an intake valve control means for controlling an opening period of an intake valve of the engine based on an engine driving condition, wherein the intake valve control means controls the valve opening period of the intake valve by advancing or retarding the valve close timing and the valve open timing of the intake valve while the valve opening period of the intake valve is kept constant; an ignition control means for controlling an ignition timing of the engine based on a minimum advance for best torque (MBT) timing at which a highest fuel economy is obtained in a current engine driving condition; a margin determination means for determining, based on the current engine driving condition, whether there is an ignition advance margin relative to the minimum advance for best torque (MBT) timing; and a waste heat control means for executing an actual compression ratio decreasing control in which an actual compression ratio of the engine is decreased by advancing or retarding a valve close timing of the intake valve by the intake valve control means, wherein the actual compression ratio decreasing control is a retard control in which the valve close timing of the intake valve is retarded to decrease the actual compression ratio, and an ignition timing advance control in which the ignition timing is advanced relative to the minimum advance for best torque (MBT) timing by the ignition control means in order to increase the waste heat quantity, when the margin determination means determines that there is no ignition advance margin relative to the minimum advance for best torque (MBT) timing; 2 Appeal 2015-008261 Application 13/027,577 the waste heat controller further comprising a valve overlap control means for controlling a valve overlap period during which a valve opening period of the intake valve and a valve opening period of the exhaust valve overlap with each other, wherein based on the engine driving condition, the margin determination means determines whether there is an ignition advance margin relative to the minimum advance for best torque (MBT) timing at a time after the valve overlap period is varied in a case that the valve overlap period is increased by varying a valve opening period of the intake valve, wherein when a heat-utilize requirement is generated, when the required waste heat quantity is insufficient at the minimum advance for best torque (MBT) timing it is determined whether an ignition advance margin exists, and wherein when the ignition advance margin does not exist, the actual compression ratio is decreased and the ignition advance margin is ensured and the ignition timing is advanced relative to the MBT timing to increase the waste heat quantity. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1 and 3—5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable overUle (US 4,009,695, iss. Mar. 1, 1977). II. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ule and Barker (US 1,903,803, iss. Apr. 18, 1933). FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. ANALYSIS Among the arguments presented, the Appellants contend that the rejection does not identify any portion of Ule’s disclosure that performs the 3 Appeal 2015-008261 Application 13/027,577 function of the “margin determination means” of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 23—28; see also Reply Br. 5—7. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part: a margin determination means for determining, based on the current engine driving condition, whether there is an ignition advance margin relative to the minimum advance for best torque (MBT) timing. Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.) According to the Final Office Action, Ule teaches a “margin determination means” at column 8, lines 1—5 and column 2, lines 50—60. Final Action 5. See also Answer 7 (citing Ule, col. 2,11. 28^49). We are persuaded that independent claim 1 was rejected in error. The cited passages of Ule, in column 2, refer primarily to intake and exhaust valve timing, although also stating that the “pressure of the ignited charge during the power stroke,” in a cylinder, “may be controlled by ignition timing, by mixture ratio and by compression ratio, but the principal means of control is the quantity of charge itself.” Ule, col. 2,11. 52—57. The identified portion of Ule’s column 8 refers to “[cjomputer controlled operation of engine valve opening and closure.” Ule, col. 8,11. 1—6. Yet, none of these identified passages in Ule mention determining any amount or limit of advancing ignition timing, let alone the claimed “determining . . . whether there is an ignition advance margin relative to the minimum advance for best torque (MBT) timing.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 and dependent claims 3—5, as well as claim 6 (as no identified disclosure of Barker overcomes the deficiency of Ule discussed above). 4 Appeal 2015-008261 Application 13/027,577 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5