Ex Parte Callicoat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2017

14054900 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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.
14/054,900 10/16/2013 Debbi Callicoat 83379430 6433
28395 7590 06/28/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER DIAO, M BAYE
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEBBI CALLICOAT, ROBERT BOLDUC, and
BEN A. TABATOWSKI-BUSH1
(Applicant: Ford Global Technologies, LLC)
Appeal 2016-006170
Application 14/054,900
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
Majority opinion by SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
Dissenting opinion by OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1—
20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify “Ford Global Technologies, LLC” as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed October 16, 2013
(“Spec.”); the Final Office Action appealed from, dated October 8, 2015
(“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief dated November 23, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the
Appeal 2016-006170
Application 14/054,900
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ disclosure relates to a voltage sensing system for a vehicle
traction battery. Abstract; Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
to the Appeal Brief (Claims App’x 1) (key disputed claim language
italicized and bolded):
1. A voltage sensing system for a vehicle traction
battery having a plurality of cells, comprising:
a battery controller;
a plurality of electrical circuits, each being
respectively connected to at least one of the cells and
including an electrical component for limiting current
therethrough; and
a plurality of wires, each being respectively
connected to the controller and one of the electrical
circuits in series with a respective one of the electrical
components for limiting current.
The Rejection
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection: Claims
1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nor.* * 3
Final Act. 4; Ans. 1—2.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellants in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner’s
Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief dated April 1, 2016 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief dated May 27, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
3 U.S. Pat. No. 5,670,861; issued Sept. 23, 1997.
2
Appeal 2016-006170
Application 14/054,900
rejection for the reasons set forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief and
Final Office Action appealed from, which we adopt as our own. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
Claim 1
The Examiner determines that Nor discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 and anticipates the claim. Final Act. 4 (citing Nor, col. 8,1. 16—col.
10,1. 60, col. 8,11. 24—32, col. 8,11. 38-44, Fig. 1 (elements 14,16,18, 28,
29, 60, 62)). Regarding the “plurality of electrical circuits” limitation of
claim 1, the Examiner interprets the term electrical circuit to mean “any
closed loop configuration through which charges can continuously flow.”
Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because a prima facie case of anticipation has not been established.
App. Br. 5, 6. In particular, Appellants argue that “it is unclear as to how the
Examiner is defining the ‘plurality of electrical circuits’ as claimed in claim
1” and thus “it is not possible to determine from the reference what
constitutes a single electrical circuit.” Id. at 5. Appellants further argue that
the electrical circuits that the Examiner identifies in Nor do not include an
“electrical component for limiting the current,” as required by claim 1. Id. at
6.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments. To serve as an anticipatory
reference, “the reference must disclose each and every element of the
claimed invention.” In re Cleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Based on the record before us, we find that a preponderance of the
evidence supports the determination that Nor discloses each and every
element of claim 1, including a “plurality of electrical circuits” and an
3
Appeal 2016-006170
Application 14/054,900
“electrical component for limiting the current.” Nor, col. 8,11. 16—58, 24—
32, 38-44, col. 9,11. 39-49, col. 10,11. 28-A6, Fig. 1 (elements 14,16,18,
28, 29, 38, 60, 62).
We also determine that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term
electrical circuit to mean “any closed loop configuration through which
charges can continuously flow” constitutes the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification and the language of the claims. In
re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the
Appeal briefing, Appellants do not dispute or offer any alternative definition
to the Examiner’s interpretation of the term.
Moreover, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 2—3) and contrary to what
Appellants argue, Nor does disclose a plurality of electrical circuits,
including data acquisition circuits, battery monitoring modules 18, auxiliary
inputs and outputs 62, ambient temperature sensor 60, current sensor, wires
38, wires 28, and protective device 29, all of which connect back to the
battery monitoring module 18 or to the main control module 16 and
constitute a closed loop. Nor, Fig. 1, col. 8,11. 16—58, col. 9,11. 39-49, col.
10,11. 28-46; see also the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 1 at page
4 of the Answer.
As the Examiner further finds (Ans. 3—4), Nor discloses that each cell
or battery module 14 is connected via respective wires 28 to the battery
monitoring module 18 and that wires 28 may be equipped with a protective
device 29, such as a resistor or fuse (Nor, col. 8,11. 16—58, 38-45, col. 9,11.
39-49), which corresponds to the “electrical component for limiting current”
limitation of claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-006170
Application 14/054,900
Appellants’ arguments reveal no reversible error in the Examiner’s
analysis and factual findings in this regard.
Appellants’ assertions that the Examiner included “generic” wires as
part of the definition of electrical circuits (App. Br. 5) and protective device
29 is “spliced” into the wires 28 {id. at 6) are not persuasive of reversible
error because they are conclusory and Appellants do not provide an adequate
technical explanation or direct us to sufficient evidence in the record to
support them. Attorney argument is not evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736
F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nor.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation “further
comprising a plurality of printed circuit boards, each having one of the
electrical circuits disposed thereon.” Claims App’x 1.
The Examiner determines that Nor discloses all of the limitations of
claim 2 and anticipates the claim. Final Act. 4—6 (citing Nor, Fig. 1
(modules 16, 18)); see also Ans. 5 (citing Nor, Fig. 1, col. 2,11. 32—37, 38—
55, 52-54, col. 28,11. 48-59).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 should be
reversed for essentially the same reasons previously presented above in
response to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 6. In particular,
Appellants argue that “it is not clear what the Examiner considers to be one
electrical circuit.” Id. at 6.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 for the same reasons discussed above
5
Appeal 2016-006170
Application 14/054,900
regarding the patentability of claim 1 and for the well-stated reasons
provided by the Examiner at page 5 of the Answer. In particular, we find
that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s analysis and
finding that Nor discloses an integrated module design for each cell or
battery module and that these elements are integrated as modules with
mounted electronic components such as resistor or fuse 29, wires 28, and a
plurality of conductive traces and buses. Nor, Fig. 1, col. 2,11. 32—37, 38—
55, 52-54, col. 28,11. 48-59.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nor.
Claims 3—20
Appellants do not present any additional substantive arguments in
response to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—20. Rather, Appellants
repeat and rely on the same arguments previously presented and discussed
above regarding the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 2. See App. Br.
6-9.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—20 for the same reasons discussed
above regarding the patentability of claims 1 and 2.
Moreover, a naked assertion that the Nor reference fails to disclose a
claim’s limitations is not an argument in support of separate patentability.
Cf. In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nor.
6
Appeal 2016-006170
Application 14/054,900
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7
Appeal 2016-006170
Application 14/054,900
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of anticipation by pointing out where all of the claim limitations appear in a
single reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner finds that Nor’s wire (28) corresponds to the
Appellants’ wire or conductor, Nor’s protective device (29) corresponds to
the Appellants’ electrical component for limiting current, and Nor’s
wire (28) and protective device (29) are part of a circuit that corresponds to
the Appellants’ electrical circuit (Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 2-4, 7—13). The
Appellants’ independent claims (1, 7, 14), however, require that the wire or
conductor is connected to an electrical circuit and to a battery controller.
The Examiner does not establish that Nor’s wire (28) can be part of an
electrical circuit and be connected to the electrical circuit. Also, the
Examiner does not establish that Nor’s wire (28), which is connected to the
battery monitoring module (18), not to the main control module (16)
(Fig. 1), meets the Appellants’ independent claims’ requirement of being
connected to a battery controller.
Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the Appellants’ claimed voltage sensing system.
Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the rejection.
8