Ex Parte Chander et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2017

12543051 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 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.
12/543,051 08/18/2009 Bala S. Chander 81178614 6606
28395 7590 05/19/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER FABULA, MICHAEL A
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2017 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 BALA S. CHANDER and ALLAN ROY GALE
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bala S. Chander and Allan Roy Gale (Appellants)1 seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated August 7, 2013 [hereinafter “Final Act.”], rejecting
claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC as the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief 1 (January 7, 2014) [hereinafter “Appeal
Br.”].
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to a “[sjystem and method
for controlling electric power in a plug-in vehicle from an external power
source to one or more components in the vehicle.” Spec. 1,11. 8-10. Claims
1,13, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
a high-voltage battery in a vehicle adapted to provide
electric power to propel the vehicle and to receive electric power
at a first charging level from an external power source having a
maximum power level;
an auxiliary battery adapted to provide low-voltage
electric power and to receive electric power at a second charging
level from the external power source; and
a controller in the vehicle configured to distribute the
electric power from the external power source to one or more
predetermined components in the vehicle based on an available
power level based on the difference between the maximum
power level and a sum of the first charging level and the second
charging level.
Corrected Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix 1 (March 4, 2015) [hereinafter
“Claims App.”].
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence in the Final Office
Action:
US 5,305,613 Apr. 26, 1994Hotta et al.
(“Hotta ’613”)
Sims US 5,467,006
2
Nov. 14, 1995
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
Hotta (“Hotta”) US 5,656,916 Aug. 12, 1997
Sept. 2, 2004
Mar. 21,2013
Hobbs
Jones et al.
US 2004/0169489 Al
US 2013/0069798 Al
(“Jones”)
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1,14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hobbs, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hobbs and Sims. Final Act. 4-8.
2. Claims 3-9, 13, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hobbs and Sims. Id. at 8-15.
3. Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hotta, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hotta and Hobbs. Id. at 15-18.
4. Claims 10, 11, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hotta, Hobbs, and Hotta ’613. Id. at 18-20.
5. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hotta, Hobbs, Hotta ’613, and Jones. Id. at 20-21.
First Ground of Rejection
Anticipation by Hobbs
Appellants argue that Hobbs does not anticipate claim 1 because it
does not disclose charging simultaneously a variety of battery types, e.g.,
having different voltage/current outputs and distributing power to the
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
predetermined components based on a difference between the maximum
power level and a sum of the first charging level and the second charging
level. Br. 6-7. Appellants similarly argue that Hobbs does not anticipate
claim 14 because it does not disclose “calculating an available power level
based on a battery charging level derived from a high-voltage battery and an
auxiliary battery and a maximum power level of the external power source.”
Id. at 7-8.
The Examiner interprets claim 1 to encompass both batteries being
high-voltage batteries. Ans. 2 (“Since a high-voltage battery has the ability
to provide low-voltage power through circuit means known in the art, such
as transformers coupled to the outputs of the batteries, two different types of
batteries are not expressly recited in claim 1”). The Examiner also interprets
claim 1 to not require: (1) that the first and second charging levels are
different, (2) the first or second charging levels are greater than zero, (3) the
charging levels do not change over time, and (4) the batteries are charged
simultaneously.2 * 4Id. at 3.
Claim 1 requires two batteries, one a high-voltage battery “adapted to
provide electric power to propel the vehicle” and another auxiliary battery
“adapted to provide low-voltage electric power.” We disagree with the
Examiner’s finding that Hobbs discloses the two distinct batteries called for
in claim 1. The Examiner finds that Hobbs discloses “[t]he batteries are
2 The Examiner also noted that the Specification describes the “one or more
predetermined components” as encompassing the high-voltage and auxiliary
batteries. Ans. 3. Appellants do not appear to contest this interpretation.
4
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
taught to comprise a battery for providing power to a motor to move the
vehicle (high-voltage battery) and an auxiliary battery for other vehicle
purposes (low-voltage battery).” Final Act. 4-5 (citing Hobbs, para. 30).
Hobbs discloses that charger 100 may be an electric-vehicle charger
configured to charge batteries (e.g., batteries 152) that are located on
vehicles (e.g., vehicle 150) and may be used, in other embodiments, to
charge batteries used for other purposes. Hobbs, para. 30. Hobbs then
describes that “batteries used for other purposes” include stationary battery
charging in energy storage, portable electric energy equipment, and
distributed or renewable electrical energy battery applications. Id. at para.
30. Hobbs does not, however, describe that a battery used for other purposes
is on a vehicle or is on the same vehicle as the battery for providing power to
a motor to move the vehicle.
The Examiner further explains that “in Figure 1, the batteries in each
of the two apparent battery packs are not depicted to be the same size or
shape” and “[b]ased upon paragraph [0030] and the apparent size, shape, and
battery cells in a ‘pack’ shown in Figure 1, it is interpreted that at least one
of the two sets of battery packs is intended to power the motor while the
other can be used for ‘other purposes.’” Ans. 6. This speculation on the part
of the Examiner as to the use for the two sets of battery packs is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Rather, we understand
Hobbs, through the use of the same reference number “152” for the two sets
of batteries, to be depicting only one type of battery on the vehicle,
i.e., either a single battery or a number of the same type of batteries
5
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
connected in series in a battery pack. See Hobbs, para. 40 (not using
reference number “152” to refer to “batteries that are used primarily just for
starting motors or other equipment”); see also id. at para. 69 (“vehicle 150
may have at least one battery pack or battery 152”).
Hobbs further describes that “chargers in accordance with the present
invention may be used for batteries that are used primarily just for starting
motors or other equipment” such as “for battery maintenance, auxiliary
battery maintenance, or both.” Hobbs, para. 40. This scant disclosure,
however, does not teach using the charger to charge two distinct types of
batteries on the same vehicle. We agree with Appellants that Hobbs
discloses using charger 100 to charge or maintain only one type of battery at
a time, and thus, does not disclose a controller configured to “distribute the
electric power from the external power source to one or more predetermined
components in the vehicle based on an available power level based on the
difference between the maximum power level and a sum of the first charging
level and the second charging level.”
Claims 1 and 14 also recite that the electric power is distributed
“based on an available power level” and further recites that the available
power level is calculated based on the maximum power level of the external
power source and the charging levels of the high-voltage and auxiliary
batteries. The Examiner explains:
As outlined above, the “predetermined components”
recited in the claims are defined by the present specification to
include the high-voltage and auxiliary batteries. Additionally, as
outlined above, the charging levels are not required to be
6
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
different or both to be non-zero. Therefore, the distribution of
power could in fact be based only on the charging levels of only
the two batteries as long as the combined charging levels are less
than the total available power provided by the external charger
or the batteries are charged sequentially. The difference between
the maximum power of the external power supply and the sum
of the first and second charging levels to determine an available
power is only relevant if the “predetermined component” is
selected from an element other than the two batteries. As the
35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejection in view of Hobbs relied upon the
selection of the “predetermined components” to be the batteries
and Hobbs teaches at least two batteries being charged by the
same external power supply, the limitations of the claims appear
to be met.
Ans. 7-8. The Examiner’s interpretation of this claim language is so broad
as to effectively read this limitation out of the claims. Even in the situation
in which the “predetermined components” are the two batteries, the claim
nonetheless recites that the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 14
calculate an available power level based on the maximum power level of the
external power source and the charging levels of the two batteries. Because
Hobbs does not disclose two distinct batteries, this calculation cannot take
place.
For these reasons, the Examiner’s finding that Hobbs anticipates the
subject matter of claims 1 and 14 is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 14,
and dependent claim 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hobbs.
7
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
Unpatentability over Hobbs and Sims
The Examiner, in the alternative rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hobbs and Sims, does not rely on
Sims for a disclosure of two distinct types of batteries. Final Act. 6 (relying
on Sims to teach distributing excess power to other non-battery components
of the vehicle). We agree with Appellants that “Sims discloses only a single
battery and, therefore, does not correct the deficiencies of Hobbs.” Br. 9.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 14, and dependent
claim 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hobbs and Sims.
Second Ground of Rejection
The Examiner relies on the same combined teachings of Hobbs and
Sims for the rejection of claims 3-9 and 16-20, which depend from claims 1
and 14, respectively. Final Act. 8-11, 14-15. Likewise, the Examiner relies
on these same combined teachings of Hobbs and Sims in the rejection of
independent claim 13.3 Id. at 11-14. For the same reasons discussed above
in the analysis of the first ground of rejection, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 3-9, 13, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hobbs and Sims.
3 Claim 13, similar to claim 1, recites two distinct batteries and a controller
configured to calculate an available power level based on a combined
charging level of the high-voltage storage battery and the auxiliary battery
and the maximum power level of the external power source. Claims App. 2-
3.
8
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
Third Ground of Rejection
Anticipation by Hotta
The Examiner finds, in the third ground of rejection, that Hotta
anticipates independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Hotta discloses a high-voltage battery
having a first charging level and a low-voltage battery preceded in the circuit
by a DC-to-DC converter which supplies the low-voltage battery with a
second charging level. Final Act. 16. The Examiner therefore “interprets
Hotta to meet the limitation that the maximum power level is used along
with the charging level of the high-voltage and auxiliary batteries to
determine an available power level for distributing to the predetermined
components.” Id. Appellants argue that Hotta does not anticipate claim 1,
because it “only calculates the available power based on the charging level
of the high-voltage battery.” Br. 12. The Examiner responds:
As the second charging level is directly dependent upon the first
charging level (i.e. the low-voltage battery is charged from the
high-voltage battery), the sum of the two charging levels would
be detected by the voltage and current sensors connected to the
high-voltage battery, since the low-voltage battery “drains” the
high-voltage battery.
Ans. 9.
We agree with Appellants that Hotta discloses calculating available
power based only on the charging level of the high-voltage battery. See
Hotta, col. 6,11. 43-51; id. at col. 6,1. 66 - col. 7,1. 8; id. at col. 7,11. 17-19
(describing the charging currents sent to battery 12). As such, the
distribution of power in Hotta is based only on a charging level associated
9
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
with the high-voltage battery 12 of Hotta and does not appear to take into
account a second charging level of an auxiliary battery. For these reasons,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hotta.
Unpatentability over Hotta and Hobbs
The Examiner, in the alternative rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hotta and Hobbs, relies on Hobbs to
teach distributing electric power from an external power source to one or
more predetermined components based upon the difference between the
maximum power level and a sum of a first and second charging level of two
different types of batteries. Final Act. 17. For the reasons discussed supra
in our analysis of the first ground of rejection, we agree with Appellants that
Hobbs does not disclose charging of two distinct battery types, and thus,
does not disclose distributing electric power in the manner recited in
independent claim 1. Br. 13. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hotta and Hobbs.
Fourth and Fifth Grounds of Rejection
The Examiner relies on the same combined teachings of Hotta and
Hobbs for the rejections of claims 10, 11,21, and 22, which depend from
claim 1. Final Act. 18-21. For the same reasons discussed above in the
analysis of the third ground of rejection, we do not sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 10, 11, and 21 as unpatentable over
Hotta, Hobbs, and Hotta ’613, and of claim 22 as unpatentable over Hotta,
Hobbs, Hotta ’613, and Jones.
10
Appeal 2015-006438
Application 12/543,051
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
11