Ex Parte Kemwal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

14004426 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/004,426 11/13/2013
26096 7590 06/01/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ajay Neil Kemwal
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.
67582-016PUS1;
JLR10-059U
CONFIRMATION NO.
1635
EXAMINER
LAGUARDA,GONZALO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AJAY NEIL KEMWAL, ADAM KEITH LEATHERLAND,
ROB PALIN, and BAPTISTE BUREAU
Appeal2017-007641
Application 14/004,426
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ajay Neil Kemwal et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 23-30 and 32--42,
which are the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies the real party in interest as Jaguar Land Rover
Limited. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007641
Application 14/004,426
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 23 and 42 are independent. Claim 23, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
23. A motor vehicle comprising:
a driver-operated brake comprising at least one of a
stopping brake and a parking brake;
an engine or electric motor operable to provide motive
power to the vehicle; and
an automatic transmission having a park mode,
the vehicle being operable automatically to switch off and
subsequently to restart the engine or electric motor during a
drivecycle thereby to reduce an amount of time for which the
engine or electric motor is on during a given drivecycle,
wherein the vehicle may be placed in a stop condition by
the driver-operated brake in which the vehicle is held stationary
and the engine or electric motor is off, the vehicle being operable
automatically to restart the engine or electric motor when a driver
signals release of the driver-operated brake,
the vehicle comprising means for detecting departure of
the driver from the vehicle, in the event that departure of the
driver is detected when the vehicle is in the stop condition the
vehicle being arranged not to restart the engine or electric motor
when the driver signals release of the driver-operated brake and
to control the transmission to assume the park mode, and
when the vehicle is held stationary in the stop condition by
the stopping brake, the vehicle being arranged automatically to
apply the parking brake in the event departure of the driver is
detected.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-007641
Application 14/004,426
REJECTIONS 2
I. Claims 23-30, 32--40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Gee (US 2011/0068895 Al, published Mar.
24, 2011) and Kuroda (US 6,358,180 Bl, issued Mar. 19, 2002).
II. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Gee, Kuroda, and Sakamoto (US 2001/0042647 Al, published Nov. 22,
2001).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I-Claims 23-30, 32--40, and 42
For claim 23, the Examiner finds Gee discloses means for detecting
departure of a driver from a vehicle, where in the event that departure of the
driver is detected when the vehicle is in a stop condition, the vehicle is
arranged not to restart drive means when the driver signals release of a
driver-operated brake and to control a transmission to assume a park mode.
Final Act. 5---6 ( citing Gee ,r,r 16, 18). The Examiner finds Gee does not
disclose that "the vehicle may be placed in a stop condition by the driver-
operated brake in which the vehicle is held stationary and the drive means is
off, the vehicle being operable automatically to restart the drive means when
a driver signals release of the driver-operated brake," as claimed. Id. at 6
( citing Kuroda, col. 8, 11. 8-24). The Examiner relies on Kuroda to teach
this limitation. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
2 A rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been
withdrawn. Ans. 2; Final Act. 4--5.
3
Appeal2017-007641
Application 14/004,426
modify Gee to include the start/stop operation of Kuroda to reduce exhaust
gas discharge. Id. (citing Kuroda, col. 2, 11. 10-15).
Appellants contend that Gee discloses a vehicle control that is
opposite to the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 3. Particularly, Appellants
contend that Gee's control technique is implemented when a vehicle engine
is running or on, whereas the claimed technique is applied when a vehicle
engine has been stopped or is turned off. Id. at 3-5 ( citing Gee ,r,r 17-18,
26-29; Fig. 2). Appellants further contend that Gee teaches leaving the
engine on in the event that a driver exits a vehicle, and thus teaches away
from the Examiner's proposed modification of Gee's technique by turning
off a power source before the driver exits the vehicle and keeping it off
when the driver exits the vehicle. Id. at 5---6.
The Examiner responds that Gee's mode of operation in an
"immobile" state would be considered as the engine being "off' due to the
broad definition of "off' provided in Appellants' Specification. Ans. 2-3.
The Examiner notes that the Specification describes that "the electric
machine 223 may be switched off (i.e. controlled so as not to develop torque
to drive the vehicle)," meaning that the vehicle engine is considered to be
"off' as long as there is insufficient power to drive the vehicle. Id. ( citing
Spec. p. 13, 11. 11-17). The Examiner takes the position that, as Gee
discloses that the vehicle is placed in an "immobile operating mode, in
which the power source 24 continues to run and drive vehicle accessories,
but the powertrain prevents transmitting torque to the vehicle wheels
sufficient[ly] to accelerate the vehicle and drive it away," Gee discloses that
its technique is likewise applied when the vehicle engine is turned "off." Id.
at 3 ( quoting Gee ,r 18); see also id. at 4.
4
Appeal2017-007641
Application 14/004,426
Claim 23 recites that "the vehicle may be placed in a stop condition
by the driver-operated brake in which the vehicle is held stationary and the
engine or electric motor is off," and "in the event that departure of the driver
is detected when the vehicle is in the stop condition the vehicle being
arranged not to restart the engine or electric motor." Appeal Br. 8 (Claims
App.) (emphasis added). Appellants contend that the plain meaning of "off'
and the use of the term "restart" in the claim are contrary to the Examiner's
construction of "off." Reply Br. 4. Appellants explain that "[i]fthe electric
motor was already on but not generating torque for driving the vehicle in the
stop condition then it would not be 'restarted' at the end of the stop
condition." Id.
The language in claim 23 quoted above requires the vehicle to already
be in the stop condition at the time that the departure of the driver is detected
by the recited "means." Gee describes a system that immobilizes the vehicle
by limiting powertrain output torque when the system detects that the driver
is exiting the vehicle. See Gee ,r,r 9, 18. In Gee's system, if the engine or
electric traction motor is operating when the vehicle operator exits the
vehicle, "the system 11 disallows vehicle propulsion by transitioning a
vehicle powertrain controller 28 to immobile operation, which may include
an entire vehicle shut-down." See id. ,r 17 ( emphasis added). This
disclosure indicates that when the vehicle is in the operating condition
(rather than the stop condition) when the vehicle operator exits the vehicle,
the entire vehicle shut-down can then be performed. Accordingly,
Appellants' argument with respect to Gee is more persuasive. The
Examiner's application of Kuroda in the rejection does not cure the
deficiencies of Gee.
5
Appeal2017-007641
Application 14/004,426
Similar to claim 23, claim 42 recites, "in the event driver departure is
detected when the vehicle is in the stop condition, not restarting the engine
or electric motor when the driver signals release of the stopping brake."
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Gee for disclosing
this limitation, merely stating, "[t ]he system above uses this method." Final
Act. 9-10 (boldface omitted).
For reasons similar to those for claim 23, we are persuaded by
Appellants that the Examiner's applied combination of Gee and Kuroda also
fails to render obvious the method recited in claim 42. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 42, or of dependent claims 24--30, 32,
33, and 36-40, as unpatentable over Gee and Kuroda.
Rejection fl-Claim 41
Claim 41 depends from claim 23. The Examiner's application of
Sakamoto does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 23. Final
Act. 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 41 as
unpatentable over Gee, Kuroda, and Sakamoto.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 23-30, 32, 33, and 36-42.
REVERSED
6