Ex Parte Katrak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 5, 2017

12203787 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 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.
12/203,787 09/03/2008 KERFEGAR K. KATRAK P003232-NAPD-TJM 3791
003.0479
70422 7590
LKGlobal (GM)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
05/09/2017 EXAMINER
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2017 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@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KERFEGAR K. KATRAK, JEFFREY T. WOLAK, and GERY J.
KISSEL
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,7871
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and ANTHONY
KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
15—22. Claim 15 is independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is GM Global
Technology Operations, Inc. ("GM") (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,787
The claims are directed to methods and systems for providing
communications between a battery charger and a battery control unit for a
hybrid vehicle. Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
15. A control system for a battery for a hybrid vehicle, the
control system comprising:
a battery control unit configured to at least facilitate:
forming a first message with at least a renewable energy
storage system (RESS) command and a command security
measure for the RESS command, the RESS command
comprising an instruction for the RESS;
transmitting the first message; and
receiving a second message with at least an RESS
response, the RESS response comprising a response to the
instruction of the RESS command, and a response security
measure for the RESS response; and
a battery charger coupled to the battery control unit and
configured to at least facilitate:
receiving the first message from the battery control unit;
forming the second message in response to the first
message; and
transmitting the second message to the battery control
unit.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix)
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Maciver US 2002/0013929 A1 Jan. 31, 2002
(“Maciver”)
Araki et al. US 2002/0030494 Al Mar. 14, 2002
(“Araki”)
Gu et al. US 2008/0086247 Al April 10, 2008
(“Gu”)
2
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,787
Nishino US 2008/0129252 A1 June 5,2008
(“Nishino”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gu, Nishino, and Maciver.
Claim 16—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gu, Nishino, Maciver, and Araki.
OPINION
Claim 15
In the Final Action (notice date April 7, 2014), the Examiner
concluded that claim 15 was unpatentable based on Gu, Nishino, and
Maciver. The Examiner stated that Gu teaches all of the claim limitations of
claim 15 except for an “RESS command comprising an instruction for the
RESS” and “a security measure for the RESS command.” Final Act. 3. As
stated by the Examiner at pages 3 and 4 of the Final Action, Nishino teaches
“communicating an instruction to charge the battery,” and Maciver teaches
“ensuring secure data transmission across different portions of a data
processing system.”
Appellants argued that all of the claim limitations were not disclosed
by the references. “Specifically, the art of record does not disclose at least
the combination ... as is recited in Appellant’s Claim 15.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appellants argued that Gu does not disclose “a renewable energy storage
3
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,787
system command that comprises an instruction for the RESS,” App. Br. 4,
Reply Br. 2, 3. Appellants’ arguments are misplaced because Gu was not
relied upon to teach this limitation Nishino was cited by the Examiner as
teaching this limitation. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner found that Nishino teaches “communicating an
instruction to charge the battery.” Final Act. 3^4 (citing Nishino 142). As
set forth by Appellants, a battery may serve as the RESS. Spec. 12.
(“Specifically, today's hybrid vehicles are typically powered at least in part
by an RESS battery, such as a relatively high voltage, lithium-ion battery.
The RESS battery is typically charged by a battery charger based on
instructions provided by a battery control unit.”). Thus, the instruction
communicated in Nishino to the battery is the same as Appellants’
instruction to the RESS or battery charger as set forth in paragraph 2 of
Appellants’ Specification.
Appellants also argued that Gu does not disclose that “a first
message.. .is received by a battery charger” (App. Br. 4) or a “second
message in response” and a “response security measure” (Reply Br. 2).
Specifically, the Examiner found that Gu teaches transmitting
“information.. .to the master controller 300 such that battery charging or
discharging operation is correctly conducted.” Final Act. 2 (citing Gu 40).
Further, the Examiner found that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
realize that since there is communication going on between these two
controls units that there are a variety of messages or instructions being [sent]
4
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,787
back and forth. Thus there are multiple messages being sent which one of
ordinary skill would realize.” Ans. 4. Appellants have not disputed this
finding.
Nishino, Appellants argued, does not teach “a command security
measure.” App. Br. 4, Reply Br. 3, 8. Appellants also asserted that Maciver
does not disclose “ensuring secure data transmission across different
portions of a data processing system.” App. Br. 4, Reply Br. 4. More
specifically, Appellants maintained that Maciver does not disclose “any data
security measure for a response to an instruction for an RESS command.”
Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ argument that Nishino lacks a command security
measure is not relevant because the Examiner points to Maciver, and not
Nishino, to teach “ensuring secure data transmission across different
portions of a data processing system.” Final Act. 3. Thus, Appellants have
not shown error with respect to the Examiner’s decision.
The “command security measure” as recited in claim 15 is a way to
provide a measure of security for the RESS command and RESS response.
As found by the Examiner, Maciver “teaches of ensuring secure data
transmission across different portions of a data processing system.” Final
Act. 3. “Hamming code.. .is a well-known linear block code scheme used to
detect and correct bit errors.” Id. at 5.
In essence, Appellants’ arguments amount to attacks on the references
individually, rather than as combined in the rejection, and, thus, do not
identify error in the rejection. As noted above, non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references. Merck, supra.
5
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,787
Appellants direct our attention to the legal precedent warning against
the use of hindsight in obviousness rejections, but do not explicitly assert
that the Examiner has resorted to impermissible hindsight in the
determination of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 15. App. Br. 6.
The Examiner articulated findings as to the teachings of Nishino and
Maciver, as well as reasons for combining those teachings with Gu. Final
Act. 3^4. Appellant does not identify any flaw in the Examiner’s reasoning
or point to any knowledge relied on by the Examiner that was gleaned only
from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, thereby failing to support
Appellant’s hindsight assertion. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the
time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge
gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).
Therefore, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner’s rejection of claim
15 is predicated on impermissible hindsight.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 15. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 16 and 17
With respect to claim 16, Appellants argued that the prior art
combination of Gu, Nishino, Maciver, and Araki does not disclose the
specific claim features. Appellants recited all of the limitations of claim 16
verbatim and argued that Gu did not disclose the limitations. App. Br. 7.
6
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,787
Appellants further emphasized this argument in the Reply Brief, stating that
the “specific claim language” of claim 16 has not been addressed by the
Examiner. Reply Br. 7. It is not necessary for the references to describe the
claimed invention “in haec verba” See In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 600
(CCPA 1977).
As set forth in the Final Action and repeated in the Answer, the
Examiner found that Gu discloses transmitting and receiving messages of
the operating status of the battery, such as the state of charge and the power
values and that Maciver teaches secure data transmission in a data
processing system. The Examiner stated that Gu does not explicitly disclose
that the RESS voltage command comprises an instruction for a calibration of
a voltage for the RESS and a calibration of a current for the RESS. Further,
Araki teaches providing instructions for voltage and current calibrations for
a battery. Final Act. 4—6, Ans. 9—10. Appellants have not shown any error in
the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants do not present a separate
argument for the patentability of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 falls with
claim 16, from which it depends.
Claim 18
Appellants argue with respect to claim 18 that the prior art does not
disclose that the “first message further comprises a low voltage command
and a fifth command security measure for the low voltage command.”
Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 8 (contending that neither Nishino nor
Maciver, “individually or collectively, discloses [the features recited in
claim 18], let alone in combination with the other features of [claim] 18
7
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,787
(including the features of [the claims] from which [c]laim 18 depends)”). In
the Final Action, the Examiner addressed these claim limitations, finding
that Gu discloses transmitting and receiving battery status messages and that
[Maciver] teaches providing secure data transmission. Nishino was relied
upon by the Examiner to teach sending instructions to a battery charger. As
mentioned above [Maciver] clearly teaches providing error detect and
correction scheme across two portions of a data processing system thus to
ensure that data is securely transmitted across the platforms. Thus,
[Maciver] teaches that messages that are transmitted from one portion to
another are secure. Ans. 10—11.
Thus, the Examiner has addressed these claim limitations finding that
Nishino teaches the low voltage command. Appellants have not shown any
error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 18 is sustained.
Claim 19
With respect to claim 19, Appellants contends that the prior art
applied by the Examiner “does not disclose . . . wherein the battery control
unit is further configured to at least facilitate transmitting a third message
from the battery charger to the battery control unit, the third message
comprising a third RESS response to the low voltage command and a sixth
command security measure for the third RESS response.” App. Br. 8, Reply
Br. 9. In response, the Examiner explained that the combination of
references discloses multiple messages in order to operate the battery
charging system.
8
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,787
It is obvious that in communication multiple messages
are being sent back and forth (first message, second message,
and tenth message). Thus as the RESS commands are issued in
the combined teachings of Gu, [Nishino], and [Maciver] an
appropriate response to the communication is issued (i.e. since
the HCU is in communication with the battery management
system they are communicating back and forth). [Maciver]
teaches of providing secure data transmission. It is clear that as
the data is being sent back and forth that the system of
[Maciver] would make sure that the data is transmitted securely
(command security measure). Ans. 11—12.
Thus, it is clear that the Examiner has relied upon Nishino to teach
battery commands. Appellants have not shown any error in the Examiner’s
findings or reasoning in combining the teachings of the references.
Additionally, Appellants argued that Gu does not disclose “any RESS
commands at all, let alone an RESS command that comprises an instruction
for the RESS.” App. Br. 5, 8, Reply Br. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9.
Appellants’ argument here once again attacks Gu individually, rather
than in combination with Nishino and Maciver as set forth in the rejection,
and, thus, is not persuasive. Appellants have not shown any error in the
Examiner’s findings or articulated reasoning for combining the teachings of
the references. For all of the reasons set forth above, we sustain the
rejection of claim 19.
Claims 20—22
Appellants do not separately argue claims 20—22. Therefore, claims
20—22 stands or falls with the claim that it depends from. Accordingly,
9
Appeal 2015-005921
Application 12/203,787
because the rejection of claims 15 and 19 is sustained, the rejection of claims
20-22 will also be sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15—22 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
10