Ex Parte OKAMOTO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2018

14243142 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/243,142 04/02/2014
23117 7590 07/13/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tsuyoshi OKAMOTO
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.
RYM-2018-3361 6028
EXAMINER
LOUIE, W AE LENNY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2018 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):
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 TSUYOSHI OKAMOTO 1
Appeal 2017-008811
Application 14/243,142
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Kitabatake (US 2015/0217756 Al, pub. Aug. 6, 2015) and Hashigaya (US
2013/0020045 Al, pub. Jan. 24, 2013). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The application identifies as Denso Corporation of Japan as the Applicant.
2 Appellant identifies Denso Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-008811
Application 14/243, 142
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a controller for a hybrid vehicle.
Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A controller for a hybrid vehicle having an internal
combustion engine, an electric motor, an alternator driven by
the internal combustion engine, and a battery, the controller
compnsmg:
a control unit which divides an engine output into a vehicle-
driving power necessary for driving the hybrid vehicle and a
requirement-power other than the vehicle-driving power, and
changes a priority of an energy supply of the engine output
between the vehicle-driving power and the requirement-power
according to a temperature of the internal combustion engine, a
state of charge of the battery, a requirement from an instrument
in the hybrid vehicle, and/or a requirement from a driver of the
hybrid vehicle.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Kitabatake discloses the claimed invention
except for changing priority between engine outputs. Final Action 3. The
Examiner relies on Hashigaya as disclosing a "permission grant unit" that
satisfies the change of priority limitation of claim 1. Id. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify Kitabatake by the teachings of
Hashigaya to achieve the claimed invention. Id. at 4. According to the
Examiner, an artisan would have done this to establish a priority. Id.
Appellant traverses the Examiner's rejection by first arguing that the
applied art fails to disclose a control unit that "divides" an engine output as
2
Appeal 2017-008811
Application 14/243, 142
claimed. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues that Hashigaya fails to
satisfy the priority limitation of claim 1. Id. at 8. According to Appellant:
The permission grant unit 25a of Hashigaya only determines
whether a permission of air-conditioning is generated or not.
Merely determining whether a permission of air-conditioning is
generated or not fails to teach or suggest changing a priority of
an energy supply of the engine output between the vehicle-
driving power and the requirement-power as claimed.
Id. ( emphasis in original).
In response to Appellant's argument about dividing driving output, the
Examiner states that Kitabatake teaches that drive modes can be selected
such that the vehicle is powered only by the engine, only by the electric
motor, or by both engine and motor. Ans. 7. The Examiner states that, in
hybrid mode, both engine and vehicle outputs are "distributed" between
vehicle driving power and other electric equipment. Id. at 8. The Examiner
states that battery state of charge is employed as a parameter to shift the
drive mode between engine only mode and hybrid mode. Id.
In response to Appellant's argument regarding prioritization, the
Examiner essentially just repeats the findings and conclusions from the final
action without further elaboration, analysis, or explanation. Id. at 9.
Appellant's Specification informs us that one object of the invention
is to provide a controller for a hybrid vehicle that is able to restrict a
shortage of power that is used for power requirements other than propelling
the vehicle, while also mitigating against a deterioration in fuel economy.
Spec. 2, 11. 2--4. In that regard, the Specification teaches a control unit that
changes priority between: (1) vehicle driving; and (2) an instrument in the
hybrid vehicle. Spec. 2, 11. 7-10.
3
Appeal 2017-008811
Application 14/243, 142
Thus, in accordance with control logic, priority is assigned to either
(1) driving/propulsion; or (2) other power requirements (such as air
conditioning the vehicle).
[T]he engine control is switched between a first engine control
and a second engine control. In the first engine control, the
electric power is firstly used for a vehicle-driving prior to other
functions. In the second engine control, the electric power is
firstly used for functions other than the vehicle-driving.
Id. at 4, 11. 25-31. The Specification further explains that, when performing
the second engine control, an engine-high-efficiency range is established.
Id. at 8, 11. 14--15. The engine output energy is divided so that the output
power is maintained in the engine-high-efficiency range, which improves
fuel economy. Id. at 8, 11. 15-18.
Interpreting the claim language in light of the teaching of Appellant's
Specification, we agree that Kitabatake does not "divide" engine output into
a vehicle driving power component and an other-power requirement
component as claimed. Although Kitabatake may power both the drive train
and other power consumers using either engine only, electric motor only, or
hybrid power, it does not "divide" the power output from the engine or the
electric motor into discrete components in a manner that would allow
priority to be selectively given to either the vehicle driving power
component or the other-power requirement component.
We further agree with Appellant that Hashigaya does not change a
priority in the manner claimed. At best, Hashigaya merely controls the use
of the air conditioning system in a vehicle based on the availability of
power. In this regard, we agree with Appellant's statement that: "The
permission grant unit 25a of Hashigaya only determines whether a
permission of air-conditioning is generated or not." Appeal Br. 8. Contrary
4
Appeal 2017-008811
Application 14/243, 142
to the Examiner's findings, Hashigaya does not use control logic to elevate
the priority of the supply of power to the air conditioning system vis-a-vis a
priority assigned to vehicle driving power, or vice versa, as required by the
claim language.
The Examiner's findings of fact are not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
unpatentability rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-7
Claims 2-7 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims App.
The Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity
that was identified above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for essentially the
same reason expressed above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 2-7.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 is reversed.
REVERSED
5