Ex Parte Averitt

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 2, 2019

14516701 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/516,701 10/17/2014 10800 7590 01/02/2019 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Scott Michael Averitt 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. 1576-1505 2762 EXAMINER OMAR, AHMED H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/02/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT MICHAEL AVERITT Appeal2018-004573 Application 14/516, 701 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed October 17, 2014 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action appealed from dated April 5, 2017 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed October 4, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated February 1, 2018 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed March 26, 2018 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2018-004573 Application 14/516, 701 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal relates to an integrated multiple voltage energy storage system and method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An integrated multiple voltage battery system comprising: a first pair of output terminals; a second pair of output terminals; a plurality of first battery cells connected in series with each other and operatively connected to the first pair of output terminals; at least one second battery cell operatively connected to the second pair of outlet terminals; and a plurality of switches, the plurality of switches arranged such that each first battery cell in the plurality of first battery cells can be selectively placed in parallel with the at least one second battery cell while electrically isolating the other of the plurality of first battery cells from the at least one second battery cell, wherein each of the plurality of first battery cells has a nominal open cell voltage which is about the same as a nominal open cell voltage of the at least one second battery cell. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App'x) Remaining independent claim 11 recites similar limitations. 2 Appellant is Applicant, Robert Bosch Battery Systems LLC and Robert Bosch GmbH, which according to the Appeal Brief is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Appeal2018-004573 Application 14/516, 701 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-15, under 35 U.S.C Â§ I03(a), as unpatentable over Ichikawa3 in view of Jiang. 4 Final Act. 3. Appellant seeks our review of the Examiner's rejection. Appeal Br. 4. Because our basis for reversal-i.e., that the Examiner fails tocome forward with credible evidence of record supporting the conclusion that it would have been obvious to replace the DC/DC converter of Ichikawa with the switch arrangement of Jiang-is common to all claims, we focus our discussion of the prior art rejections on claim 1. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections")). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant's arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Ichikawa in view of Jiang. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Ishikawa teaches a multiple voltage battery system for vehicles having a first pair of 3 Ichikawa et al., US 2011/0169448 Al, published July 14, 2011 ("Ichikawa"). 4 Jiang et al., US 2014/0183939 Al, published July 3, 2014 ("Jiang"). 3 Appeal2018-004573 Application 14/516, 701 output terminals and a second pair of outlet terminals. Id. at 4. The Examiner acknowledges that Ishikawa fails to describe several claim elements but finds that Jiang accounts for these deficiencies. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds that Jiang describes a first set of battery cells connected in series and operatively connected to a first pair of outlet terminals as well as a second battery cell operatively connected to a second pair of outlet terminals. Id. at 5. The Examiner also finds that Jiang describes a plurality of switches that are arranged so that each of the first battery cells can be placed in parallel with the second battery cell while electrically isolating the other first battery cells not in parallel with the second battery cell. Id. The Examiner further finds that Jiang suggests the first battery cells has a nominal open cell voltage which is about the same as the nominal open cell voltage of the second battery cell. Id. The Examiner reasons that one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Ichikawa and Jiang to replace the DC/DC converter of Ichikawa with the switching mechanism of Jiang "for the benefit of providing a battery system capable o[f] providing power to all loads (high and low voltage) while minimizing conversion losses." Id. at 6. The Examiner additionally reasons that the replacement would provide a "system with dual output voltages while reducing the cost and size of the electrical system." Ans. 3. The Examiner further explains that while having similar nominal open cell voltages for the first and second battery cells about the same is not explicitly disclosed it would have been obvious "for the benefit of protecting the low voltage loads against damage by keeping the maximum voltage applied to the low voltage loads to about that of the low voltage battery." Final Act. 6. 4 Appeal2018-004573 Application 14/516, 701 Appellant advances several arguments in support of its position that the Examiner committed reversible error in rejecting claims 1-15. Because Appellant's argument (Appeal Br. 7-8) that the Examiner's reasons for combining the references, i.e., "in order to protect 'the low voltage loads against damage by keeping the maximum voltage applied to the low voltage loads to about that of the low voltage battery,"' does not "clearly articulate reasons for obviousness" is persuasive of error, we do not reach the remaining arguments. In particular, we find persuasive Appellant's argument that by replacing Ichikawa's only DC/DC converter with the switching arrangement of Jiang, the DC/DC converter and its function of protecting the low voltage battery from higher voltage would be lost. Id. at 8. Appellant explains that "simply using cells in each group [that] have the same nominal open cell voltage," as the Examiner suggests, "would not protect the low voltage loads from damage from the voltages generated by the generator 14 and the traveling motor 16." While the Examiner states "that both systems provide protection for the low voltage batteries" (Ans. 4), the Examiner has not shown that the functionality of the DC/DC converter of Ichikawa is equivalent to the functionality of the switching system of Jiang such that one may be substituted for the other. Accordingly, on this record, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner makes no findings regarding any of the dependent claims that corrects the deficiencies of the rejection of the independent claims. 5 Appeal2018-004573 Application 14/516, 701 CONCLUSION Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15, under 35 U.S.C Â§ 103(a), as unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Jiang. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15 is reversed. REVERSED 6