Ex Parte Brandt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2017

12785285 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2017)

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.
12/785,285 05/21/2010 Randy L. Brandt 09-1078 1589
78061 7590
Boeing (TLG)
c/o Toler Law Group
8500 Bluffstone Cove
Suite A201
Austin, TX 78759
EXAMINER
OMAR, AHMED H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2017 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):
patentadmin @ boeing. com
docketinggroup @ tlgiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDY L. BRANDT and DANIEL I. TAIRA
Appeal 2016-004621
Application 12/785,2851
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—13, 15—19, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 In our Opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action issued March 21, 2014
(“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed July 14, 2014 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer issued August 26, 2014 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief
filed October 24, 2014 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-004621
Application 12/785,285
The claims are directed to a system, method, and device for battery
cell charge equalization. Claims 1 and 17, reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a battery comprising a plurality of battery cells coupled
in series;
first circuitry to monitor a voltage of a first battery cell,
wherein the first circuitry compares the voltage of the first
battery cell to a voltage threshold, wherein the voltage threshold
has an initial value equal to a first value, wherein, in response
to applying a charging current to the battery, the first circuitry
routes at least a portion of the charging current to bypass the
first battery cell in response to the voltage of the first battery
cell satisfying the voltage threshold, wherein the first circuitry
dynamically activates a divider circuit in response to the
voltage of the first battery cell satisfying the voltage threshold,
wherein activating the divider circuit changes the voltage
threshold to a second value by changing a voltage divider
ratio of a voltage divider of the first circuitry, and wherein the
second value is lower than the first value', and
second circuitry to monitor the voltage of the first battery
cell, wherein, in response to applying the charging current to
the battery, the second circuitry generates a monitor output in
response to the voltage of the first battery cell satisfying a
monitor threshold, wherein the monitor threshold is equal to a
third value, and wherein the third value is higher than the first
value.
17. A battery cell charge equalization device comprising:
a voltage reference device coupled to a battery cell,
wherein the voltage reference device compares a voltage of the
battery cell to a voltage threshold, wherein the voltage threshold
has an initial value equal to first value, wherein in response to
the voltage of the battery cell satisfying the voltage threshold,
the voltage reference device activates, wherein activation of
the voltage reference device enables current flow through a
2
Appeal 2016-004621
Application 12/785,285
first circuit path, and wherein in response to the voltage of the
battery cell being below the voltage threshold, the voltage
reference device deactivates;
a first switching device coupled to the first circuit path,
wherein the first switching device is activated by the current
flow through the first circuit path to enable current flow
through a second circuit path, wherein the current flow through
the second circuit path causes the voltage threshold to change to
a second value, and wherein the second value is different than
the first value; and
a second switching device coupled to the first circuit
path, wherein the second switching device is activated by the
current flow through the first circuit path to activate a third
circuit path, and wherein the third circuit path routes at least a
portion of a charging current away from the battery cell.
Appeal Br. (Claims App’x) 13, 17.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Thomas et al. US 2005/0258805 Al Nov. 24, 2005
(“Thomas”)
Choi et al. US 2009/0079390 Al Mar. 26, 2009
(“Choi”)
Imai US 2009/0102421 Al Apr. 23, 2009
Nishino et al. US 2010/0188048 Al July 29, 2010
(“Nishino”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains and Appellants seek review of the following
rejections: (1) claim 17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Imai; (2)
claims 1—4, 8, 10, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Imai in view of
Choi and Nishino; (3) claims 5—7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Imai,
3
Appeal 2016-004621
Application 12/785,285
Choi, and Nishino, and further in view of Thomas; and (4) claims 11—13, 15,
16, 18, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Imai in view of Choi.
Final Act. 3, 5, 18, and 23.
OPINION
We address the rejections in the order taken by the Examiner and
Appellants.
Rejection of claim 17 as anticipated
The Examiner finds that the Measure/Control Circuit 3 of Imai’s
Figure 1 is a voltage reference device, the path from the charging circuit 4 to
the battery is the first circuit path, switch SWa is a first switching device,
and switch SWb is a second switching device. Final Act. 3—4, 9. The
Examiner finds Measure/Control Circuit 3 is turned on by applied constant
current Ij to battery cells Ba-Bd to monitor or measure the voltage of the
battery cells. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that both the
first and second switching circuits activate when the first battery cell or
second battery cell reaches a reference voltage to balance the first battery
cell or second battery cell with the rest of the batteries for uniform charging
or discharging. Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that Imai does not disclose that activation of
Measure/Control Circuit 3 enables current Ij to go through the circuit
connected to charging circuit 4. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Imai does not require action by
Measure/Control Circuit 3 in order for constant current Ij to flow through the
circuit (including what the Examiner characterizes as the first circuit path).
4
Appeal 2016-004621
Application 12/785,285
See, e.g., Imai Fig. 1. Measure/Control Circuit 3 controls switches SWa-
SWd which enable bypassing charging of individual batteries Ba-Bd. Id.
121.
Appellants further argue that switches SWa and SWb are not activated
by current Ij, as required by claim 17, but, rather, are activated by individual
signals coming from Measure/Control Device 3. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants
argue that “the signals controlling the two switches are distinct from each
other in order to ensure that individual battery cells are not charged when
they have reached their upper threshold just because their neighboring
battery cell has yet to reach its upper threshold.” Id.
Appellants persuade us that the Examiner reversibly errs in finding
that the first and second switching circuits are activated in response to
constant current Ij flowing into the first circuit path. See Ans. 3. Imai
teaches that
[wjhen the voltage of a particular secondary battery reaches an
upper voltage threshold . . ., the measurement/control element
may control the switch SWa-SWd of the bypass circuit 2 in
parallel with the respective battery in the ON position. By
controlling the respective switch in the ON position, the electric
current that charges the respective battery may be redirected
through the respective bypass circuit (bypassing the respective
battery), thereby slowing the rate of charging the respective
battery.
Imai 122. The causal relationship required by claim 17 (“wherein the first
switching device is activated by the current flow through the first circuit
path”) is not disclosed by Imai.
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
5
Appeal 2016-004621
Application 12/785,285
Rejection of claims 1—4, 8, 10, and 21 as obvious over Imai in view of
Choi and Nishino
Appellants contend that the combined cited references do not disclose
the following portion of claim 1:
wherein the first circuitry dynamically activates a divider circuit
in response to the voltage of the first battery cell satisfying the
voltage threshold, wherein activating the divider circuit changes
the voltage threshold to a second value by changing a voltage
divider ratio of a voltage divider of the first circuitry, and
wherein the second value is lower than the first value[.]
Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner finds that Choi teaches this limitation. Final Act. 6—7.
The Examiner finds Choi discloses that “the first circuitry dynamically
activates a divider circuit in response to the voltage of the first battery cell
satisfying the voltage threshold” when Choi’s transistor 201 turns on as the
measured voltage reaches a predetermined charge termination voltage, and
the voltage divider activates in response to a signal from voltage that is
generated in the bandgap reference circuit 207, which is disclosed by
equation 1. Ans. 4—5; see also Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner also finds that
Choi discloses a divider circuit is able to change the voltage threshold to a
second value by changing a voltage divider ratio of a voltage divider. Final
Act. 5. According to the Examiner, Choi teaches that the voltage threshold
can be adjusted and adapted so that the balancing circuit 200 can be adapted
to various kinds of batteries with different turn on charge termination
voltages for transistor 201. Id. (citing Choi Fig. 2, || 42, 45).
Appellants argue that Choi teaches a voltage divider can be designed
to set a desired voltage at which a transistor turns on by adjusting a voltage
divider ratio when designing the rechargeable battery array, but the reference
6
Appeal 2016-004621
Application 12/785,285
does not teach dynamically changing a voltage divider ratio by activating a
circuit. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants contend that voltage divider circuit 200 of
Choi does not change a voltage threshold once built, i.e., does not change in
response to transistor 201 activating. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that
changing a threshold when designing a voltage divider, as disclosed by Choi,
is not the same as changing a voltage threshold to a second value by
changing a voltage divider ratio of a voltage divider when a circuit is
activated, as required by claim 1. Id.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Choi teaches designing a voltage
divider with a predetermined charge termination voltage based on the
reference voltage of the bandgap reference circuit 207 and the two
resistances of the voltage divider 206. Choi 142. Choi does not disclose
that activating the divider circuit changes the voltage threshold to a second
value by changing a voltage divider ratio of a voltage divider, as required by
claim 1. The Examiner’s finding ignores this requirement of claim 1.
The Examiner’s reliance on Choi to teach the disputed limitation
constitutes reversible error. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4, 8,
10, or 21, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Rejection of claims 5—7 and 9 as obvious over Imai, Choi, and
Nishino, and further in view of Thomas
Claims 5—7 and 9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appeal
Br. 14 (Claims App’x). The Examiner rejects the claims over Imai, Choi,
Nishino, and Thomas. Final Act. 18. The Examiner does not find that
Thomas teaches the limitations that have been found, supra, to be lacking
7
Appeal 2016-004621
Application 12/785,285
from Imai and Choi. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5—
7 and 9 for the reasons given for claim 1.
Rejection of claims 11—13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22 as obvious over Imai
in view of Choi
Claim 11 requires, inter alia, “wherein dynamically activating the
circuit changes the voltage threshold to a second value by changing a
voltage divider ratio of a voltage divider of the battery charge equalization
circuit.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App’x). This limitation is very similar to
the limitation in dispute in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13, 16 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner finds that Choi teaches the limitation, using the
identical analysis used against claim 1. Final Act. 6—7, 24—25. In turn,
Appellants’ argument that Choi does not teach the limitation in claim 1 is
identical to their argument that Choi does not teach the very similar
argument in claim 1.
Based on our analysis of Choi’s disclosure in relation to claim 1,
supra, we are persuaded that the Examiner reversibly errs in finding that
Choi teaches the limitation in claim 11. We do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim ll’s dependent claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19,
and 22.
8
Appeal 2016-004621
Application 12/785,285
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—13, 15—
19,21, and 22 are reversed.
REVERSED
9