Ex Parte Liang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2018

14057048 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/057,048 10/18/2013
28395 7590 09/07/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei Liang
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.
83365397 1072
EXAMINER
CHEN, SHELLEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI LIANG, MARK STEVEN YAMAZAKI,
XIAOYONG WANG, RAJIT JOHRI,
RYAN ABRAHAM McGEE, and MING LANG KUANG
Appeal2018-001505 1
Application 14/057,0482
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed May 1,
2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 29, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 6, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Dec. 1, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001505
Application 14/057 ,048
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[the] application relates to control of a
hybrid vehicle powertrain to provide power to external devices." Spec. ,r 1.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, is illustrative of the
appealed claims and recites:
1. A vehicle comprising:
an engme;
a battery including terminals;
an electric machine; and
at least one controller programmed to, in response to a
difference between a voltage across the terminals and a
predetermined reference voltage in the absence of a demand for
propulsive power, operate the engine at an operating point
selected based on the difference to cause a power output of the
electric machine to change the voltage to reduce the difference.
Appeal Br. 8.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hanyu. 3
DISCUSSION
As discussed below, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1 because the Examiner has not established that it would
have been obvious in view of Hanyu to "operate the engine at an operating
point selected based on the difference to cause a power output of the electric
machine to change the voltage [ across the battery terminals] to reduce the
3 Hanyu et al., US 2006/0164034 Al, pub. July 27, 2006.
2
Appeal 2018-001505
Application 14/057 ,048
difference" between the voltage across the battery terminals and a
predetermined reference voltage as required by claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hanyu discloses, in
relevant part, "operat[ing] the engine at an output point selected based on the
difference to cause a power output of the electric machine to change the
voltage to reduce the difference" and that "Hanyu explicitly discloses
changing the voltage across the terminals [ of the battery] to reduce the
difference." Final Act. 5 ( emphasis omitted) ( citing Hanyu abstract, Figs. 1,
11-13; ,r,r 8, 36, 48-50). The Examiner finds that operating the engine at an
output point as taught by Hanyu "is equivalent to operating the engine at a
selected operating point of the engine," and the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to operate the engine at a selected operating point
"in order to achieve the desired engine output." Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Hanyu only discloses "modifying the
engine output to control the charge/discharge power of the battery to
approximately zero" and "the battery is [then] switched out of the circuit"
and disconnected such that "the voltage across the battery terminals is
unaffected by the engine and electric machine operat[ing] at this time."
Appeal Br. 5 ( emphasis omitted). Thus, Appellants assert that when the
battery voltage is then changed, it "occurs independently from the engine
and electric machine operation" and it cannot be said that the engine is
operated to change the voltage across the battery terminals as required by the
claim. Id. We agree.
First, we agree that the claim plainly requires that engine must be
operated to cause the change in the voltage of the battery, as indicated by
Appellants. The Examiner does not specifically identify where Hanyu
3
Appeal 2018-001505
Application 14/057 ,048
discloses operating the engine to cause this change in voltage. In particular,
in response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner maps certain claim
language to portions of Hanyu's disclosure without reference to the
requirement that the engine is operated to cause the change in voltage of the
battery. See Ans. 3.
Further, we see no indication in the cited portions of Hanyu that the
engine is operated to cause a change in the battery voltage. Hanyu discloses
that a variable voltage control unit 50 "decides on the necessity of changing
the battery voltage." Hanyu ,r 44. Once it has been decided to either
increase or decrease the battery voltage, Hanyu discloses that the
charge/discharge power of the battery is made to be approximately zero,
after which the battery is disconnected by opening switch 24. Id. at ,r,r 47-
50, see also id. at ,r 40 ( disclosing that when switch 24 is open, the battery is
"electrically disconnected from the system"). Hanyu discloses that the
voltage of the battery is only changed after the switch is opened by changing
the connection method of the battery. Id. After the battery connection
method has been changed to increase or decrease the battery voltage, Hanyu
discloses that the motor generators are operated to change the DC voltage so
that is becomes equivalent to the battery voltage. Id. Thus, we agree with
Appellants that Hanyu discloses that the battery is disconnected and the
voltage of the battery is changed independent from operation of the engine.
Appeal Br. 5; see also Hanyu ,r,r 40-42.
Based on the foregoing, we agree that the Examiner has not
established that Hanyu teaches operating the engine to cause a change in the
battery voltage, as required by claim 1. Furthermore, the Examiner does not
otherwise explain why operating the engine to cause a change in battery
4
Appeal 2018-001505
Application 14/057 ,048
voltage would have been obvious in view of Hanyu. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2-6.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-6.
REVERSED
5