Diamond, Steven et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2020

13434692 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2020)

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.
13/434,692 03/29/2012 Steven Diamond A68348 1120US.1 8087
26158 7590 09/01/2020
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
MCDANIEL, TYNESE V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2020 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):
BostonDocket@wbd-us.com
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN DIAMOND, GABRIEL RISK, STANLEY HU, and
SAMUEL YEONG-SHI CHANG
____________

Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 29, 2012 (“Spec.”);
Non-Final Office Action dated May 31, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal
Brief filed Oct. 31, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer dated Mar.
7, 2019 (“Ans.”). There is no reply brief.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Atieva, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to rechargeable battery systems and methods of
operation within a battery system. Spec. ¶ 1, Figs. 5–9. Claim 1 illustrates
the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method of operation within a battery system, the method
comprising:
generating a plurality of initial estimate of state-of-charge
(ESOC) values based upon open circuit voltage (OCV)
corresponding to a plurality of battery blocks;
charging the plurality of battery blocks in a battery pack
during a first interval;
measuring respective charging voltages of the battery
blocks after a start and before an end of the first interval to
generate a respective actual initial state-of-charge (SOC) for
each battery block;
determining based on the charging and the measuring,
for each battery block, a respective offset between the respective
initial ESOC value and the respective actual initial SOC;
revising, for each battery block, the respective initial
ESOC value based upon the determined respective offset to
generate a revised ESOC;
identifying a first battery block of the plurality of battery
blocks that has a charging voltage higher than a charging voltage
of another of the battery blocks; and
discharging the first battery block without discharging
others of the plurality of battery blocks to reduce a difference
between the charging voltage of the first battery block and the
charging voltages of the other of the battery blocks wherein the
discharging is based on the revised ESOC value for the first
battery block wherein the discharging is executed before
charging the plurality of blocks during a second interval.
Appeal Br. 1 (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded).
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Mabuchi et al.
(“Mabuchi”)
US 3,980,940 Sept. 14, 1976

Podrazhansky et al.
(“Podrazhansky”)
US 5,504,415 Apr. 2, 1996

Kadouchi et al.
(“Kadouchi”)
US 2003/0146737 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
Osborne US 2004/0164706 Al Aug. 26, 2004
Anderson et al.
(“Anderson”)
US 2011/0112781 Al May 12, 2011

Kato3 JP 2010-220380A Sept. 30, 2010
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 5–6, 9–16, 19, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Mabuchi
(“Rejection 1”). Non-Final Act. 8.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kato in view of Mabuchi in further view of Podrazhansky
(“Rejection 2”). Id. at 26.
3. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Mabuchi in further view of
Osborne (“Rejection 3”). Id. at 27.

3 The Examiner refers to and cites the machine-generated translation of the
Kato reference provided in the record.
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

4
4. Claims 7, 8, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Mabuchi in further view
of Kadouchi (“Rejection 4”). Id. at 29.
5. Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kato in view of Mabuchi in further view of Anderson
(“Rejection 5”). Id. at 31.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions the Examiner and
Appellant advance in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections based essentially on the fact-finding and reasoning the Examiner
provides in the Answer and Non-Final Office Action, which we adopt as our
own. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–6, 9–16, 19, and 20 under § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Kato and Mabuchi. In response to the
Examiner’s rejection, Appellant presents argument for the patentability of
independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 as a group but does not present separate
argument for the patentability of any dependent claims. Appeal Br. 6, 11.
We select claim 1 as representative and claims 5–6, 9–16, 19, and 20 stand
or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Kato and Mabuchi
suggests a method satisfying all of the elements of claim 1 and concludes the
combination would have rendered the claim obvious. Non-Final Act. 8–14.
Appellant argues principally that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
should be reversed because the Examiner misconstrues certain claim terms
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

5
and misapplies the improperly construed claim terms to Kato’s disclosure.
Appeal Br. 7 (“The Examiner has erred by misconstruing claim terms, Kato,
or both.”); see also id. at 6 (“The rejection relies on an incorrect alleged
showing of claim terms in Kato.’).
In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner misconstrues the term
“charging voltages” and the phrases “charging the plurality of battery blocks
in a battery pack during a first interval” and “measuring respective charging
voltages of the battery blocks after a start and before an end of the first
interval,” as recited in the claim. Id. at 9–10. Appellant contends that, in
contrast to the Examiner’s interpretation, the term “charging voltages” is
properly interpreted as measurements of battery block voltages while
charging the battery block and the “charging the plurality of battery blocks
in a battery block during a first interval” and “measuring respective charging
voltages of the battery blocks after a start and before an end of the first
interval” are properly interpreted to mean charging the battery blocks during
the first interval and measuring the charging voltages of the battery blocks
occurs during the same first interval. Id. at 9.
Appellant further argues the Examiner misconstrues the “initial
estimate of state-of-charge (ESOC),” “actual initial state-of-charge (SOC),”
and “revised ESOC” recitations of the claim. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant
contends these phrases should be interpreted as all referring to the same,
initial SOC for each battery block, as estimate, actual, and revised estimate
respectively. Id. at 9. Appellant further contends the phrase “respective
offset between the respective initial ESOC value and the respective actual
initial SOC” is properly interpreted as a value by which the actual initial
state-of-charge (SOC) is offset from the initial estimate of state-of-charge
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

6
(ESOC) as the ESOC is revised and all referring to the same initial SOC. Id.
at 9–10. Appellant also contends that, because the term “revises” is used
differently in Kato than in the claims, the portion of Kato the Examiner cites
and relies on for disclosing the recitation “revised ESOC” does not teach or
suggest that element of the claim. Id. at 10–11.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection based on the fact-finding and reasoning the
Examiner provides at pages 5–18 of the Answer and pages 8–14 of the
Non-Final Office Action, which a preponderance of the evidence supports.
Rather, as we discuss below, in view of the claim construction analysis the
Examiner provides at pages 8–14 of the Answer, we determine that the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language, including each of the claim
terms and phrases at issue, constitutes the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. We also determine that the Examiner
properly applies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language
to the cited art and provides the requisite factual basis and technical
reasoning sufficient to support the Examiner’s determination that the
combination of Kato and Mabuchi suggests a method, which satisfies each
of the limitations of claim 1 and the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination would have rendered the claim obvious.
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must
be read in light of the specification, as they would have been interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 1364.
Consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

7
presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning (i.e., plain and
ordinary meaning) as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Regarding the “charging the plurality of battery blocks in a battery
pack during a first interval” and “measuring respective charging voltages of
the battery blocks after a start and before an end of the first interval”
recitations of claim 1, as the Examiner finds and explains (Ans. 8–9), the
Specification does not provide any special definition for the terms “charging
voltages” or “first interval” beyond the language recited in the claim. As the
Examiner further finds (Ans. 9), neither the claim language nor the
Specification impose a specific order on the performance of the recited
steps. Appellant also does not identify or direct us to any description in the
Specification indicating that these limitations must be construed narrowly to
mean that the step of charging the battery blocks and the step of measuring
respective charging voltages of the battery blocks is during the same first
interval, as Appellant argues.
Thus, absent any special or scope-limiting definition in the
Specification, we determine the Examiner correctly construes and applies
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrases “charging the plurality
of battery blocks in a battery pack during a first interval” and “measuring
respective charging voltages of the battery blocks after a start and before an
end of the first interval” so as not to impose a specific order on the
performance of these method steps. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496
F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]e look to the specification to see if it
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

8
provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.”).
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “charging the
plurality of battery blocks in a battery pack during a first interval” and
“measuring respective charging voltages of the battery blocks after a start
and before an end of the first interval” claim language to the cited art, we
discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Kato discloses
those limitations of the claim. Rather, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s analysis and determination (Ans. 10) that
Kato teaches charging the plurality of battery blocks in a battery pack during
a first interval (Kato, Figs. 10, 12, ¶ 43) and measuring respective charging
voltages of the battery blocks after a start and before an end of the first
interval to generate a respective actual initial state-of-charge (SOC) for each
battery block (Kato, Figs. 4, 14, ¶ 46), which, because Appellant has not
filed a reply brief, stand unrebutted.
For similar reasons, as the Examiner finds and explains at pages
11–14 of the Answer, we determine the Examiner correctly construes and
applies the broadest reasonable interpretation for each of the remaining
claim terms and phrases at issue, including the “initial estimate of state-of-
charge (ESOC),” “actual initial state-of-charge (SOC),” “revised ESOC,”
and “respective offset between the respective initial ESOC value and the
respective actual initial SOC.” ICON Health & Fitness, 496 F.3d at 1379.
Similarly, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
language to the cited art, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s
analysis and determination (Ans. 11–14) that Kato teaches or suggests each
of those elements of the claim (Kato, Figs. 2, 4, 10, 12, 14, ¶¶ 36, 37, 43–46,
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

9
57), which we find a preponderance of the evidence supports and stand
unrebutted.
Appellant also argues Kato does not teach or suggest “determining
based on the charging and the measuring, for each battery block, a respective
offset between the respective initial ESOC value and the respective actual
initial SOC” in the manner claimed. Appeal Br. 12–14. Appellant contends
that, in contrast to the Examiner’s rejection, “Kato isn’t measuring or
determining an offset as described in the claims” (id. at 13) and “Mabuchi
does not remedy the deficiencies of Kato” (id. at 14).
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection based on the fact-finding and reasoning the
Examiner provides at page 16 of the Answer and page 9 of the Non-Final
Action, which we find a preponderance of the evidence in the record
supports. See Kato, Figs. 10–12, ¶¶ 36–39, 44, 45. As the Examiner finds
(Ans. 16), Kato discloses a “ΔSOCn” parameter. Kato ¶ 45. According to
Kato, ΔSOCn reflects SOC that fluctuated during the current system
operation of each secondary battery cell and is obtained from the measured
cell voltage fluctuation ΔVn and the voltage-SOC characteristic. Id. at 45.
As the Examiner further finds (Ans. 16), Kato discloses that ΔSOCn can be
obtained by calculating the difference between the respective initial ESOC
value (SOC(SVn)), which is based on the startup voltage “SVn” of all the
secondary battery cells and the respective actual initial SOC (SOC(EVn)),
which is based on the stop-time cell voltage “EVn” of all of the secondary
battery cells. See Kato, Fig. 12, ¶¶ 44–45. Kato also discloses that both SVn
and EVn are measured and used in calculations for determining the
minimum full charge capacity cell. Id. ¶¶ 36–39.
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

10
Thus, on the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that Kato’s
teachings in this regard would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary
skill the “determining based on the charging and the measuring, for each
battery block, a respective offset between the respective initial ESOC value
and the respective actual initial SOC” limitation of the claim. In particular,
as the Examiner finds and explains (Ans. 16), applying the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim phrase “determining based on the
charging and the measuring, for each battery block, a respective offset” to
the prior art, we find that Kato’s disclosures regarding ΔSOCn, ΔVn, SVn,
and EVn, how these parameters are measured or obtained, and the
relationships between them, including how certain of the parameters are
used in and/or relate to determining the minimum full charge capacity cell
(see Kato, Figs. 10–12, ¶¶ 36–39, 44, 45) would have reasonably suggested
to one of ordinary skill that language of the claim.
Appellant’s arguments do not reveal reversible error in the
Examiner’s factual findings in this regard. Appellant’s comments at pages
12–14 of the Appeal Brief are not persuasive because they merely reflect
what Appellant contends Kato discloses and Appellant does not adequately
explain how or why they indicate reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Appellant’s disagreement as to the Examiner’s factual findings as
to what the prior art teaches and would have reasonably suggested to one of
ordinary skill, without more, is insufficient to establish reversible error.
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“[M]ere statements of disagreement . . . as to the existence of factual
disputes do not amount to a developed argument.”).
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

11
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5–6,
9–16, 19, and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Kato and Mabuchi.
Rejections 2, 3, 4, and 5
The Examiner rejects claim 2 under § 103 as obvious over the
combination of Kato, Mabuchi, and Podrazhansky (Rejection 2); claims 3
and 4 under § 103 as obvious over the combination of Kato, Mabuchi, and
Osborne (Rejection 3); claims 7, 8, and 17 under § 103 as obvious over the
combination of Kato, Mabuchi, and Kadouchi (Rejection 4); and claim 18
under § 103 as obvious over the combination of Kato, Mabuchi, and
Anderson (Rejection 5). Non-Final Act. 26–32.
In response to the Examiner’s rejections, Appellant does not present
any additional substantive arguments. Rather, Appellant relies on the same
arguments it previously discusses and presents above in response to the
Examiner’s Rejection 1. See Appeal Br. 15–17.
Thus, based on the fact-finding and reasoning the Examiner provides
in the record, and for principally the same reasons we discuss above for
affirming the Examiner’s Rejection 1, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections
of claim 2 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Kato, Mabuchi, and Podrazhansky (Rejection 2); claims 3
and 4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
Kato, Mabuchi, and Osborne (Rejection 3); claims 7, 8, and 17 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Kato,
Mabuchi, and Kadouchi (Rejection 4); and claim 18 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Kato, Mabuchi, and
Anderson (Rejection 5).
Appeal 2019-005515
Application 13/434,692

12
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–6, 9–16,
19, 20 103(a) Kato, Mabuchi
1, 5–6, 9–16,
19, 20
2 103(a) Kato, Mabuchi, Podrazhansky 2
3, 4 103(a) Kato, Mabuchi, Osborne 3, 4
7, 18, 17 103(a) Kato, Mabuchi, Kadouchi 7, 18, 17
18 103(a) Kato, Mabuchi, Anderson 18
Overall
Outcome 1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv).
AFFIRMED