Ex Parte Hasegawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 2016

12810124 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/810,124 06/22/2010 Takahiko Hasegawa 23838 7590 03/14/2016 KENYON & KENYON LLP 1500 K STREET N.W. SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 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. 14006/190 2874 EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2016 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): uspto@kenyon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAKAHIKO HASEGAWA and KOTA MANABE Appeal2014-005420 Application 12/810, 124 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's final rejection of claim 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF CASE The claims are directed to a "fuel cell system that controls an output voltage of a fuel cell by means of a DC/DC converter that 1 In our opinion below, we refer to the Final Office Action appealed from, mailed June 5, 2013 (Final), the Appeal Brief filed December 3, 2013 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed February 3, 2014 (Ans.), and the Reply Br. filed March 25, 2014 (Reply Br.). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-005420 Application 12/810,124 increases/decreases an output voltage of a fuel cell stack, and a mobile object equipped with the system." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 2, the sole pending claim, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below: 2. A fuel cell system comprising: a DC/DC converter for increasing/ decreasing an output voltage of a fuel cell; a calculation unit which is programmed to calculate a passing power of the DC/DC converter; a power control unit which is programmed to determine, when the calculated passing power falls within a reduced response performance area, the passing power of the DC/DC converter so that the passing power does not fall within the reduced response performance area; and a drive control unit that drives the DC/DC converter so as to obtain the determined passing power. Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 12. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. 3 OPINION According to the Examiner, claim 2 is anticipated by Ishikawa because Ishikawa teaches a fuel cell system including: a DC-DC converter "20" for increasing/decreasing an output voltage of a fuel cell "22"; and a power supply controller "l O" (calculation unit) that calculates the converter passing power, 3 Ishikawa et al., WO 2005/076433 Al, published August 18, 2005. The Examiner relies upon US 2008/0220298 Al, published September 11, 2008,as an English language equivalent of WO 2005/076433 Al (Final Act. 3) (hereinafter "Ishikawa"). 2 Appeal2014-005420 Application 12/810,124 wherein the power supply controller (power control unit) determines if the passing power is greater than a first power value P 1 which is construed as a passing power that does not fall within the reduced response performance area, wherein when the passing power is equal to or smaller than the first power value P 1, the efficiency is reduced which is construed as a reduced response performance area; wherein the power supply controller (drive control unit) selects the number of phases (drives the DC- DC converter) so that the efficiency is good at the value of power of the passing power (determined passing power) of the DC-DC converter (paragraphs [0046]-[0048],[0051 ]). Final 3. The Examiner also explains that Ishikawa discloses that "the passing power Pc has become equal to or smaller than the first power value Pl" (para. [0048]). A value that is equal to or smaller than a first power value P 1 is still a range, even if it's an open ended range. Nowhere in claim 2 does it require any specific "range" with a starting point and an end point. Ans. 3; see also Final 4. The Examiner continues that "Ishikawa explicitly discloses a power supply controller that calculates converter passing power" and then "operates the DC-DC converter by controiiing the number of phases which drives the DC-DC converter in order to obtain the passing power where the efficiency is good." Final 4. Therefore, says the Examiner, "[ t ]he changing of the operating phase corresponds to a change in passing power. So, Ishikawa does indeed disclose a range and a shift in passing power." Ans. 4. Appellants argue that Ishikawa describes a different system than the instant invention. Appeal Br. 8. First Appellants explain that "Ishikawa bases its operations on threshold values-not areas" or a range of values. Id. at 9; Reply 6. According to Appellants, "Ishikawa does not describe making a determination as to whether a converter's passing power falls within a reduced response performance area. Rather, Ishikawa's control units can 3 Appeal2014-005420 Application 12/810,124 only determine whether passing power is above or below a threshold value .... " Appeal Br. 10. Second, Appellants assert that "Ishikawa discloses changing the number of phases-not the converter's passing power." Id. at 9. Specifically, Appellants explain [ w ]hile the present application discloses a system that aims to avoid inefficiency by shifting converter passing power out of a specified passing power zone, Ishikawa describes a system that simply reacts to passing power by choosing whether to operate in three-phase or single-phase. The presently claimed system changes passing power; Ishikawa leaves it undisturbed. Id. at 10. Appellants continue that the instant invention requires more than simply switching the passing power from low to high. Reply Br. 7. "Indeed, the opposite may occur in some cases. For example, a system in line with this claim may alter passing power from a higher value to a lower value, as shown by the movement from point b to point b' in FIG. 4 of the present application." Id. at 8. Thus, any shifting of the passing power in Ishikawa "falls short of the deliberate determination and driving" of the passing power in the instant application. Id. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The dispositive issue on appeal is: whether the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Ishikawa teaches a "power control unit which is programmed to determine ... the passing power of the DC/DC converter so that the passing power does not fall within the reduced response performance area" and then drive the converter to obtain the determined 4 Appeal2014-005420 Application 12/810,124 passing power? We agree with Appellants and find the Examiner did commit reversible error. The Examiner's finding that a shift in the operating phase based on the measured passing power (as taught by Ishikawa) is the same as positively changing the passing power to a calculated or determined level to avoid a reduced response performance area (as taught by the instant application) is in error. In relevant part, the instant invention claims a fuel cell system where the power control unit determines the passing power of the converter-when the calculated passing power falls within a reduced response performance area-so that the passing power does not fall within the reduced response performance range and then a drive control unit drives the converter to obtain the determined passing power. The Specification explains when the passing power of the DC/DC converter 60 obtained in accordance with the power distribution falls within, e.g., the negative reduced response performance area (see passing power b in Fig. 4 ), the passing power of the DC/DC converter 60 is shifted in a direction in which an amount of power generated by the fuel cell stack 20 increases (negative direction) without any influence on the system output, thereby avoiding the reduced response performance area (see passing power b ---> passing power b' in Fig. 4). Spec. i-f 44. Thus, according to the instant invention, the passing power is changed to avoid the reduced response performance area. Id. i-f 42. Contrary to the Examiner's findings, Ishikawa does not teach this. The Examiner has not shown that Ishikawa describes a structure including each and every element as set forth in the claim. Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631. 5 Appeal2014-005420 Application 12/810,124 CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ishikawa. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claim 2 is reversed. REVERSED 6