Ex Parte Brisebois

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

13727418 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
13/727,418 12/26/2012 Glen James BRISEBOIS 081318-0571 1064
123262 7590 03/22/2017
McDermott Will & Emery, LLP (Linear)
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
GRANT, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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):
mweipdocket @ mwe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLEN JAMES BRISEBOIS1
Appeal 2015-0049522
Application 13/727,418
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Glen James Brisebois (“Brisebois”) timely appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection3 of all pending
claims 21—37. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Linear Technology Corporation.
(Appeal Brief, filed 29 October 2014 (“Br.”), 1.)
2 We presume familiarity with our Opinion in related appeal 2013-004297
(“Brisebois 1”), entered 13 May 2015 (aff’d in part) in parent application
11/896,669, filed 5 September 2007, nowU.S. Patent No. 9,270,133 (issued
23 February 2016)
3 Office action communicated 22 August 2014 (“Final Rejection”; cited as
“FR”).
Appeal 2015-004952
Application 13/727,418
OPINION
A. Introduction4
The subject matter on appeal relates to a system (independent
claims 21 and 28) and a method (independent claim 30) for monitoring an
energy storage system comprising electrochemical cells connected in series.
An embodiment of the invention is illustrated in Fig. 2, below right.
TOP Of 102
BATTERY STACK ^
Monitoring system 1005 comprises
serially connected cells Cl—Cn that
are monitored by battery monitors BM1—
BMm, each monitor monitoring plural cells.
The monitors are arranged in a chain, and
monitored data is transferred over the chain in
a first direction to a controller. In response to
monitored data, the controller produces
control data that is transferred over the chain
to the monitors in a second direction opposite
to the first direction. The control data
includes the address of a cell to be controlled.
TO CONTROLLER
(Fig. 2 shows a battery cell monitoring system}
4 Application 13/727,418, Monitoring cells in energy storage system,
filed 26 December 2012 as a continuation of 11/896,669, filed 5 September
2007, now U.S. Patent No. 9,270,133 (issued 23 February 2016, following a
decision (aff d-in-part) in appeal 2013-004297) and claiming the benefit of
provisional application 60/907,423, filed 2 April 2007.
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal 2015-004952
Application 13/727,418
Claim 21 is representative and reads:
A system for monitoring an energy storage system composed
of cells connected in series, comprising:
[mO] a plurality of monitors arranged in a chain for
monitoring and controlling conditions of the cells, and
[cO] a controller coupled to the chain of monitors
[cl] for receiving monitored data produced by the
monitors and transferred over the chain in a first
direction,
[c2] the controller being responsive to the monitored data by
[c3] producing control data transferred over the chain of the
monitors in a second direction opposite to the first direction,
[c4] the control data including address information
identifying a cell to be controlled,
a monitor of the plurality of monitors being
[ml] configured for monitoring conditions of multiple
serially connected cells and being
[m2] associated with multiple switches respectively
coupled to the multiple monitored cells to control
conditions of the monitored cells,
[m3] the monitor being responsive to the control data by
controlling a switch corresponding to the cell identified
in the address information to perform an operation in
connection with the identified cell.
(Claims App., Br. 19; some indentation, paragraphing, bracketed labels, and
emphasis added.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection6:
A. Claims 21—27 and 30-37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Puchianu,7 Miyazaki,8 and Suppanz.9
6 Examiner’s Answer mailed 6 February 2015 (“Ans.”).
7 Silviu Puchianu, Signaling system, U.S. Patent No. 6,404,166 B1 (2002).
3
Appeal 2015-004952
Application 13/727,418
Al. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Puchianu and Suppanz.
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Similar, but somewhat more complicated claims to closely related
subject matter were discussed at length in the prior appeal (2013-004297;
“Briseboisl”) in parent application 11/896,669 (the “’669 Application”).
We refer the interested reader to that Opinion for details of the invention, but
have provided a brief summary, supra, for context. The claims at issue in
Briseboisl concerned systems for and methods of controlling similar
batteries comprising cells connected in series. We affirmed the rejection of
independent claim 21, which encompassed monitoring and charging single
cells (Briseboisl, pp. 6—12), but we reversed the rejection of remaining
independent claim 35, which was limited to monitoring and charging groups
of plural cells. (Briseboisl, para, bridging 12—13.) Subsequent to judgment,
Brisebois filed an amendment amending claim 21 and certain dependent
claim to recite groups of cells. (’669 Application, Amendment
filed 13 July 2015.) The Examiner responded by indicating allowability of
the amended claims as well as claim 35 and its dependent claims.
8 Hideki Miyazaki et al., Battery apparatus for controlling plural batteries
and control method of plural batteries, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2005/0242775 Al (2005).
9 Bradley J. Suppanz et al., Battery charge management architecture, U.S.
Patent No. 6.014,013 (2000).
4
Appeal 2015-004952
Application 13/727,418
(’669 Application, Office action mailed 14 August 2015). In due course
U.S. Patent No. 9,270,133 issued on 23 February 2016.
In the present appeal, the Examiner relies on the same references
applied in the parent application as evidence of obviousness. In particular,
the Examiner finds that Puchianu discloses, at column 4, line 57, through
column 5, line 11, a system meeting limitations mO and cO—c4, which relate
to the plurality of monitors and the arrangement and operation of the
controller. (FR 3,11. 13—21.) The Examiner finds that Puchianu differs from
the claimed invention in that Puchianu does not describe limitations ml—m3,
which relate to monitoring multiple serially connected cells by a single
monitor, and the control of particular cells by the corresponding monitor via
associated multiple switches. {Id. at 3,1. 21, to 4,1. 4.) The Examiner finds
that Miyazaki discloses monitoring and control of multiple cells via multiple
switches. {Id. at 4,11. 4—8, citing Miyazaki Figure. 1, elements IC-1 and
VB1—VB4.) The Examiner finds further that “Suppanz discloses the
monitor being responsive to the control data by controlling a switch
corresponding to the cell identified in the address information.” {Id. at 11. 8—
11, citing Suppanz col. 4,11. 41—48.) The Examiner reasons that it would
have been obvious, in view of Miyazaki, to monitor multiple cells in the
system of Puchianu, and to control charging of a particular cell as taught by
Suppanz. {Id. at 11. 11—17.)
Brisebois identifies a critical difficulty (among others) with the
rejection, namely, the absence of evidence in the passage cited by the
Examiner (Puchianu, col. 4,1. 57, to col. 5,1. 11) that the controller responds
to monitored data. (Br. 6,11. 1—11.) That passage does teach that
“communications from the central battery monitoring system 3 to the cell
5
Appeal 2015-004952
Application 13/727,418
monitoring devices CM pass from left to right along the communication
link 9 and communications from the cell monitoring devices CMi to the
central battery monitoring system 3 pass from right to left along the
communication link 9.” (Puchianu, col. 4,1. 66, to col. 5,1. 5.) However,
Brisebois urges, the next paragraph of Puchianu explains that
communications between the monitors CM and the central monitoring
system 3 operate in two modes, neither of which involves a command from
the central monitoring system to any particular cell in response to data
received from the monitor of that cell. (Br. 6,1. 4.)
In the first mode of operation, central monitoring system 3 polls the
monitors, i.e., it sends a command to each monitor, one after the other. In
response, the monitors cause certain tests to be done “on the corresponding
battery cell Q and returns the results of the tests back to the central battery
monitoring system 3 via the communication link 9.” (Puchianu col. 5,
11. 21—23.) In the second mode of operation, “the central battery monitoring
system 3 listens for communications on the communication link 9 from the
cell monitoring devices CMi indicating that there is a faulty condition with
one of the battery cells Q.” (Id. at col. 5,11. 24—27.) When cell monitoring
device CMi detects a faulty condition, it sends a message back to the central
battery monitoring system along communication link 9. (Id. at 11. 27—34.)
In both the first and second modes, no communication by the central battery
monitoring system 3 to any CMi is described that is “responsive” to data
sent from that CMi. Indeed, Puchianu teaches that “[i]f there is a fault with
one of the battery cells Ci or if there is some other faulty condition, the
CPU 11 can trigger a local alarm 23 to alert a technician that there is a fault
with the battery 1 or with one or more of the battery cells CC (Id. at col. 7,
6
Appeal 2015-004952
Application 13/727,418
11. 8—12.) These actions described by Puchianu do not involve sending
commands to the faulty cell via any monitor CMi.
The Examiner responds that the data sent by the monitors “is used to
control the charging of battery, which can be seen in Puchianu Column 7,
lines 40-45.” (Ans. 2,11. 15—16.) The Examiner continues that the disputed
claim limitation is met because “[t]he aspect of the control data as applied to
the rejection does not look at the communication between the central battery
monitoring system and the charger, it merely realize [sic: relies[?]] upon the
communication between the central battery monitoring system and the cell
monitoring device.” {Id. at 11. 16—19.)
The passage of Puchianu cited by the Examiner reads in full:
In this embodiment, the central battery monitoring system 3
is also used to control the battery charger (not shown) which
is used to charge the battery 1. In particular, the central
battery monitoring system 3 monitors the charging current,
the remaining battery capacity, the ambient temperature etc
and controls the operation of the charger (not shown) so that
the battery charging is in accordance with the specific
charging procedures recommended by the battery
manufacturer for the battery 1.
(Puchianu, col. 7,11. 40-48.)
Consideration of the system illustrated in Puchianu Figure 1,
reproduced on the following page, indicates that the charging current is
monitored by loop 8, and the temperature is provided by temperature
sensor 5. The state of the battery, in particular the remaining battery
capacity (RCP), is determined by equations (2) and (1). (Puchianu, col 6,
11. 18—64.) Those equations show that the only measured data is the
charging current of the battery 1 that is measured by monitor 8.
7
Appeal 2015-004952
Application 13/727,418
{Puchianu Figure 1 is reproduced below}
(Puchianu Fig. 1 shows battery 1 with central battery monitoring system 3}
Substantial evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that, in the
recharging of the cells of battery 1, command data are sent from the
controller (central battery monitoring system 3) to monitors CMi in response
to data sent from the monitors to the controller. Nor does the Examiner
direct our attention to disclosure by Puchianu of any other sort of “control
data” that would have been obvious to send in response to monitored data.
The Examiner does not make any findings with respect to Miyazaki or
Suppanz that cure this defect. Indeed, although Miyazaki does disclose, in
Figure 1 (not reproduced here; cited by the Examiner (FR 4,11. 4—8)), plural
cells, VB1 through VB12, which are monitored by monitors IC1, IC2, and
IC3, as well as associated switches, and arguably serial communication
through each monitor, the flow of control data from main control unit MPU
to IC1, IC2, and IC3 is clockwise, and the flow of monitored data is in the
same clockwise direction. In Suppanz, as shown in Fig. 1 (not reproduced
here; see Briseboisl at 8), communication between controlling
microprocessor 20 of charge controller 36 over chargers 38/bypass
modules 32 is by parallel pathways to each cell 24.
8
Appeal 2015-004952
Application 13/727,418
In short, the Examiner’s reliance on the recharging of the battery
described by Puchianu and by Suppanz does not provide evidence probative
of control data transmission from the central battery monitory system 3 of
Puchianu to any cell monitors CMi. Nor has the Examiner come forward
with evidence that providing such a transmission would have been obvious
based on identified teachings of the applied references. We decline, in the
first instance, to scour the references for evidence of such disclosure and to
weigh any such evidence that might be found against the other evidence of
record. Our primary role is appellate review, not examination de novo.
We therefore reverse the appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 21—37 is reversed.
REVERSED
9