Ex Parte Gale et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

12938843 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
12/938,843 11/03/2010 Allan Roy Gale 83161479 4230
28395 7590 06/02/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER ROBBINS, JERRY D
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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 ALLAN ROY GALE,
PAUL THEODORE MOMCILOVICH, and
MICHAEL W. DEGNER
Appeal 2016-002368
Application 12/938,843
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1, 4, 8, 13,
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed Nov. 3, 2010, the
Examiner’s Final Office Action dated Jan. 23, 2015, Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (Appeal Br.) filed June 23, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) dated
Oct. 26, 2015, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed Dec. 28, 2015.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002368
Application 12/938,843
14, and 18 as unpatentable over Koenck3 in view of Zhang,4 and remaining
claims 2, 3, 5—7, 9-12, and 15—17 as unpatentable adding Mitsutani.5 We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a battery charger for a vehicle having a
temperature control system that may reduce the charger’s output current
from a commanded value to a target value that varies according to the
temperature of the charger if the temperature falls within a predetermined
range of temperatures. Spec. 1:14—22. Appellants disclose that when
charging a vehicle from an AC line, charger components may heat up when
excessive power is being drawn from the AC line, when excessive ambient
temperatures occur, and when there is a loss of cooling. Id. at 2:1^4.
According to Appellants, to limit charger heating, typically the charging was
terminated. Id. at 2:4—6.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An automotive vehicle power system comprising:
a battery charger having an input and output, and
configured to (i) receive electrical energy via the input when
the input is electrically connected with an electrical power
source and (ii) reduce a current provided at the output from a
commanded value to a target value that varies continuously
inversely proportional to a temperature of the battery
charger if the temperature falls within a predetermined range
of temperatures.
3 Koenck et al., US 5,493,199, issued Feb. 20, 1996 (“Koenck”).
4 Zhang, US 2008/0136377 Al, published June 12, 2008.
5 Mitsutani, US 2010/0127665 Al, published May 27, 2010.
2
Appeal 2016-002368
Application 12/938,843
Independent claim 8 recites a vehicle having a battery charger that is
similarly configured “to provide a current to the traction battery at a target
value that varies continuously inversely proportional to a temperature of the
battery charger if the temperature falls within a predetermined range of
temperatures.” Independent claim 13 recites a method of operating a vehicle
battery charger that “output[s] a current to a vehicle traction battery at a
target value that varies continuously inversely proportional to a temperature
of the battery charger if the temperature falls within a predetermined range
of temperatures.”
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not argue the claims or rejections separately. Pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014), we select claim 1 to address
Appellants’ arguments. Independent claims 8 and 13, as well as dependent
claims 2—7, 9-12, and 14—18 stand or fall with claim 1.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellants’ claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the
stated obviousness rejections for substantially the fact findings and the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and the Final
Office Action. We offer the following for emphasis only.
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
3
Appeal 2016-002368
Application 12/938,843
The Examiner finds Koenck discloses an automotive vehicle power
system comprising a battery charger 206 having an input and an output 26
configured to receive electrical energy at the input and output electrical
energy to a traction battery 25. Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges
Koenck fails to disclose that the charger is configured to reduce current at
the output from a commanded value to a target value that varies
continuously inversely proportional to a temperature of the battery charger if
the temperature falls within a predetermined range of temperatures. Id. at 4.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Zhang teaches a battery charger configured
to provide this missing feature for the purpose of effective charging and
preventing overheating. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to include Zhang’s battery charger in Koenck to provide an
inexpensive charger circuit that provides effective charging and prevents
overheating. Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to explain why one of
ordinary skill would have had reason to combine Koenck and Zhang as
proposed. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that Koenck alters its charge rate
based on battery cell temperature, rather than battery charger temperature, in
order to optimize the charge rate for the battery cells. Appeal Br. 3. As
such, Appellants contend that Koenck already provides effective charging.
Id. Appellants further argue that, though Zhang monitors the temperature of
its charging die, such would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art to disregard cell temperature and instead consider charging die
temperature when selecting charge rate. Id. Appellants urge that nothing in
6 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
4
Appeal 2016-002368
Application 12/938,843
Koenck suggests that its battery charger suffers from the overheating issues
of Zhang. Id. at 3^4; Reply Br. 2. Moreover, Appellant asserts that
selecting charge rate based on charging die temperature as opposed to
battery cell temperature “may interfere with Koenck’s attempts to optimize
the charge rate for its battery cells—impermissibly rendering Koenck
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2.
As indicated above, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. Initially, we note,
as did the Examiner (Ans. 2—3), that Appellants’ arguments, in part, address
the references individually, rather than as a whole. “Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. . . .
[The reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches
in combination with the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, contrary to Appellants’
argument, the Examiner does articulate rationale for combining Koenck and
Zhang as proposed—because Zhang teaches its battery charging circuit
provides an inexpensive solution for effective charging while preventing
battery charger overheating. See Final Act. 4, citing Zhang 12.
In addition, we note Appellants fail to direct our attention to any
evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning why combining Koenck
with Zhang as the Examiner proposes “may interfere with Koenck’s
attempts to optimize the charge rate for its battery cells” and how this would
render Koenck unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Indeed, Koenck’s
purpose is to charge a battery using a battery charger receiving electrical
energy from a source. Koenck Fig. 1; 3:14—27. Fikewise, Zhang’s purpose
5
Appeal 2016-002368
Application 12/938,843
is to charge a battery using a battery charger receiving electrical energy from
a source. Zhang || 1 and 3; Fig. 1. Appellants provide no evidentiary basis
to substantiate their contention that modifying Koenck by including a
charging circuit as taught by Zhang would interfere with Koenck’s objective
of efficiently charging a battery.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Final Office Action and the Answer, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Koenck
in view of Zhang, alone or further in view of Mitsutani, 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
6