Ex Parte Katrak et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201712203787 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation