Ex Parte Grigoryants

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 10, 2017

13570230 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 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. 13/570,230 08/08/2012 Yuri Grigoryants YURATECH1-1US 6308 81793 7590 08/ Patent Law Agency, LLC PETER GANJIAN 2029 VERDUGO BLVD. #1031 MONTROSE, CA 91020-1626 EXAMINER NGO, BRIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2851 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/14/2017 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): pganjian@PatentLawAgency.com U S PTO. OfficeActions @ gmail.com US PTO. Actions @ hotmail. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YURI GRIGORYANTS Appeal 2016-008435 Application 13/570,230 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims an integrated charger system. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An integrated charger system, comprising: a construction cordless power tools battery pack that includes: one or more batteries; a main port for charging the one or more batteries and for powering cordless power tools by the one or more batteries, and a charger system with a secondary port that is directly, electrically, and mechanically integrated within the construction Appeal 2016-008435 Application 13/570,230 cordless power tools battery pack and with the one or more batteries to charge an externally coupled electronic device via the secondary charging port of the charger system by the one or more batteries. The References Matsuda Ball Hsu US 5,717,318 Feb. 10, 1998 US 2008/0150474 A1 June 26, 2008 US 2008/0284371 A1 Nov. 20, 2008 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1— 4 and 7 over Ball in view of Hsu and claims 5 and 6 over Ball in view of Hsu and Matsuda. We affirm the rejections. The Appellant argues the claims as a group (Br. 7—14). Although an additional reference is applied in the rejection of claims 5 and 6, the Appellant does not separately argue those claims (Br. 14). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 2—7 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Ball discloses a cordless power tool battery pack (10) comprising batteries (not shown) and a main port (stem portion 14) for charging the batteries and for powering cordless power tools by the batteries flflf 26, 29; Figs. 1, 4). Hsu discloses a multifunctional power storage and supply device (100) comprising a battery pack (2) which attaches to the device (100)’s housing (1) for charging the battery(s) (4) and has a mini OPINION 2 Appeal 2016-008435 Application 13/570,230 USB port (22) for charging portable electronic devices (6) flflf 5—7, 19, 24— 29; Figs. 4, 5). The Appellant argues that “each reference is complete and functional in itself and therefore, there is no suggestion or teachings in the references to use parts from Hsu or add or substitutes [sic] parts to any reference, including Ball” (Br. 11). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). In making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In light of Hsu, one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have added a USB port to Ball’s battery pack to provide the benefit of adding a USB port to a battery pack disclosed by Hsu, i.e., enabling portable electronic devices to be charged by the batteries (Hsu 119). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1—4 and 7 over Ball in view of Hsu and claims 5 and 6 over Ball in view of Hsu and Matsuda are 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). AFFIRMED 3