Ex Parte Hofmann

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 12, 2019

13823605 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/823,605 03/14/2013 20151 7590 03/14/2019 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC HENRY M FEIEREISEN 35 West 35th Street SUITE 900 NEW YORK, NY 10001 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Reinhard Hofmann 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. HOFMANN-12 2236 EXAMINER TORRES RUIZ, JOHAL! ALEJANDRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2019 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): INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REINHARD HOFMANN Appeal2017-003800 Application 13/823,605 1 Technology Center 2800 Before JENNIFER S. BISK, SCOTT E. BAIN, AND STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 8 and 11-16, which constitute all claims pending in the application. Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 have been cancelled. An oral hearing was held on December 10, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Audi AG. Br. 2. Appeal2017-003800 Application 13/823,605 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention Appellant's claimed invention relates to charging a battery in a motor vehicle, and specifically, balancing individual electrochemical cells of the battery during rapid charging. Spec. 1--4. Claim 8, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 8. A method for charging a battery of a motor vehicle, compnsmg: charging all electrochemical cells of a plurality of electrochemical cells of the battery, each associated with a monitoring and control unit, with a predefined charge current for a predefined charge time when charging the battery for a first time; storing in a battery controller, after charging the battery for the first time, a target charge state for each of the electrochemical cells; for each subsequent recharging process determining a charge state of each of the electrochemical cells by each of the monitoring and control units and transmitting the determined charge state of each of the electrochemical cells by each of the monitoring and control units to the battery controller; for each subsequent recharging process iteratively optimizing for each of the electrochemical cells a charge current and/or charge time by the battery controller proportionally to the deviation of the charge state from the target charge state stored in the battery controller; learning by the battery controller to charge the electrochemical cells in an optimum manner based on the iterative optimization, and in each subsequent recharging process recharging each of the electrochemical cells by the battery controller with the charge current and/or charge time proportional to the deviation of the charge state from the target state stored in the battery controller in the optimum manner based 2 Appeal2017-003800 Application 13/823,605 on the iterative optimization until they reach the target charge state, without balancing and without overcharging the electrochemical cells. Br. 8 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added). The Rejection on Appeal Claims 8 and 11-16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Palatov (US 2011/0234165 Al; Sept. 29, 2011) and Moore (US 2006/0033475 Al; Feb. 16, 2006). Final Act. 2---6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, and provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis. In its Brief,2 Appellant does not contest the Examiner's findings that Palatov and Moore, cumulatively, teach or suggest every element of independent claim 8 (the lone independent claim). Br. 4--5. Appellant, however, argues that the Examiner erred in finding a rationale for combining the references. Id. at 4---6. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner's reasoning "cannot be justified" because Palatov does not disclose the use of iterative optimization, as disclosed in Moore and recited in claim 8. Id. at 5. We, however, are not persuaded the Examiner erred. 2 No reply brief was filed. 3 Appeal2017-003800 Application 13/823,605 The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not contest, that Palatov teaches each cell in a battery pack is optimally charged to its full capacity by monitoring the condition of each cell and individually adjusting charging current and/or voltage based on the condition. Ans. 2 (citing Palatov ,r,r 22- 24). The Examiner acknowledges that Palatov does not teach iterative optimization of the cells, as recited in claim 8, but finds this teaching in Moore. Ans. 3. As the Examiner finds, Moore teaches charging a vehicle battery by iteratively optimizing a charge current for each electrochemical cell by a battery controller. Ans. 3; Moore ,r,r 13, 20, 37-38. Moore teaches that the charge current is proportional to a deviation of a charge state of electrochemical cells from a target charge state stored in the battery controller, iteratively optimized until the target charge state is reached. Moore ,r,r 13, 20, 37-38. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that iterative charging as described in Moore would be advantageous in the battery-charging system of Palatov. Ans. 4---6. Moore discloses that its method "improve[ s] performance" of electric batteries in vehicles and "extend[ s] the battery life," reduces costs, and extends range of vehicle batteries. Moore ,r 39; see also id. ,r,r 37-38. Palatov, similarly, is concerned with the problem of "reliable and cost effective" charging of electric batteries in vehicles, specifically the optimization of electric cell charging, and nothing in Palatov suggests that iterative optimization of charge is undesirable. Palatov ,r,r 1-3, 7-9. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Moore to Palatov to yield the expected advantages of "allowing charging current of individual cells to be adjusted based on the energy acceptance of each cell." 4 Appeal2017-003800 Application 13/823,605 Ans. 4; Moore ,r 37; see In re Ethicon, 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ( desire to optimize can provide motivation to combine references); Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA Ent., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (no error in combining references that share the "same purpose," "goal," or "objective"). Appellant does not point to any evidence of record that the resulting arrangements of the cited references were "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)). The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle, "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 8. Appellant does not argue the remaining dependent claims separately. We, therefore, also sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11-16. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8 and 11-16. 5 Appeal2017-003800 Application 13/823,605 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6