Ex Parte Grider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2016

12838828 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/838,828 07/19/2010
28395 7590 04/13/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Duane M. Grider
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83147144 7079
EXAMINER
BORISSOV, IGOR N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2016 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 DUANE M. GRIDER, BRUCE CARVELL BLAKEMORE,
and WLIE D'ANNUNZIO
Appeal2013-009576 1
Application 12/838,8282
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 9-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
March 7, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 23, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 23, 2013) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed October 10, 2012).
2 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2013-009576
Application 12/838,828
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a vehicle battery that can be
charged with green energy from an off-board energy source (Spec. 1, 1. 33 -
2, 1. 20).
Claim 9, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
9. A vehicle comprising:
a battery configured to be selectively charged with energy
from an off-board energy source; and
at least one controller configured to (i) receive user input
specifying a green energy mode of battery charging and (ii) in
response to the input, determine a time period available for
charging the battery, determine when, during the time period,
energy available from the off-board energy source is identified
as being green energy, and cause the battery to be charged during
a least a portion of the time period when the energy available
from the off-board energy source is identified as being green
energy.
REJECTIONS
Claims 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vitale (US 2010/0174667 Al, pub. July 8, 2010) and
Sirton (US 2010/0114798 Al, pub. May 6, 2010).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Vitale, Sirton, and Hafner (US 2009/0313033 Al, pub. Dec. 17, 2009).
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds that
Vitale discloses substantially all of the limitations recited in claim 9 but the
Examiner acknowledges that Vitale does not expressly disclose "receiv[ing]
user input specifying a green energy mode of battery charging" (Final
2
Appeal2013-009576
Application 12/838,828
Act. 4). The Examiner cites Sirton to cure the deficiency of Vitale. And the
Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one [of] ordinary skill[] in the art
at the time of the invention for Vitale et al[.] to combine the green
energy mode selection feature as disclosed by Sirton for charging
an electric vehicle since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each
element merely would have performed the same function as it
did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Final Act. 4--5.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 9 is improper because
"[t]he examiner has done nothing more than conclude that the invention of
claim 9 is obvious because limitations of the claim have purportedly been
found in the prior art" (App. Br. 2; see also Reply Br. 2). But Appellants
offer no persuasive argument or technical reasoning to explain why the
modification described by the Examiner is more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions.
Appellants have failed to establish error on the part on the Examiner.
See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results"). Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent
claims 10-16, which are not argued separately except based on their
dependence on claim 9.
3
Appeal2013-009576
Application 12/838,828
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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
4