Ex Parte Kuehner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

12866517 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 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.
12/866,517 12/09/2010 Jochen Kuehner 10191/6569 2371
24972 7590 03/21/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
CAMBY, RICHARD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2017 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOCHEN KUEHNER, MARTIN TRUNK,
ARNOLD WINTER, and DRAGAN MIKULEC
Appeal 2015-001827
Application 12/866,517
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 10-16 and 18. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 “The real party in interest in the present appeal is ROBERT BOSCH
GmbH.” (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2015-001827
Application 12/866,517
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ “invention relates to a method for discharging a high-
voltage vehicle electrical system, to a control device, and to a vehicle having
a high-voltage vehicle electrical system.” (Spec. 1,11. 2-4.)
Illustrative Claim
10. A method for discharging a high-voltage onboard vehicle
electrical system having at least one energy store and a plurality
of high-voltage consumers, the method comprising:
electrically separating the energy store from the rest of
the vehicle electrical system; and
switching on at least one of the high-voltage consumers
in order to reduce a charge stored in the vehicle electrical
system;
wherein the high-voltage consumers include a DC/DC
converter.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 10-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Verbrugge (US 2008/0011528 Al, pub. January 17, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Claims 10, 14, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal, with the
rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 11—13 and 16) depending therefrom.
(See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claim 10 recites “[a] method for discharging a high-
voltage onboard vehicle electrical system,” independent claim 14 recites “[a]
control device for discharging a high-voltage onboard vehicle electrical
system,” and independent claim 15 recites “[a] vehicle” comprising “a high-
voltage vehicle electrical system.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
2
Appeal 2015-001827
Application 12/866,517
The Examiner finds that Verbragge discloses a hybrid electrical
vehicle with a high-voltage electrical system. (See Final Action 3.)
Verbrugge discloses “a high voltage electrical system 12 associated with
powering a vehicle propulsion system and a low voltage electrical system 14
associated with powering one or more accessory loads.” (Verbrugge 126.)
The Examiner does not specifically state which system(s) in Verbrugge (e.g.,
system 12 alone or systems 12 and 14 together) correspond to the “vehicle
electrical system” recited in independent claims 10, 14, and 15. (See Final
Action 3; see also Answer 2-4.)
Independent claims 10, 14, and 15 each recites that the high-voltage
electrical system has or includes “at least one energy store and a plurality of
high-voltage consumers.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that Verbrugge discloses “low voltage battery 26”
and “high-voltage consumers] 34 and 18.” (Final Action 3.) The identified
energy store (battery 26) is a component of Verbrugge’s low-voltage
electrical system 12 and the identified high-voltage consumers (AC converter
portion 34 and motor/generator 18) are components of Verbrugge’s high-
voltage electrical system 14. (See Verbrugge, Tflf 28—31, Fig. 1.) Thus, the
Examiner’s findings implicate that Verbrugge’s system 12 and Verbrugge’s
system 14 are together considered the “vehicle electrical system” recited in
independent claims 10, 14, and 15.
Independent claims 10, 14, and 15 each recites “electrically separating
the energy store from the rest of the vehicle electrical system.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Verbrugge discloses a switch 36 that
separates the energy store from the rest of the vehicle system. (See Final
Action 3.) Verbrugge discloses that “[w]hen the switch 36 is opened, the
3
Appeal 2015-001827
Application 12/866,517
opened switch 36 configuration operates to isolate the low voltage electrical
system 14 from the high voltage electrical system 12.” (Verbrugge 138.)
According to the Examiner, Verbrugge’s system 12 “is the rest of the vehicle
electrical system.” (Answer 3.)
The Appellants argue that “Verbrugge does not describe electrically
separating the energy store from the rest of the vehicle electrical system.”
(Appeal Br. 4.) We are persuaded by this argument because the Examiner
does not adequately address Verbrugge’s accessory power loads 28 and the
electrical connection of switch 36 thereto.
As discussed above, Verbrugge’s system 12 and Verbrugge’s
system 14 are together considered the “vehicle electrical system” recited in
independent claims 10, 14, and 16. Accessory power loads 28 are part of
Verbrugge’s system 12 (see Verbrugge, Fig. 1) and so “the rest of the
vehicle electrical system” includes Verbrugge’s accessory power loads 28.
Thus, in order for Verbrugge’s battery 26 to be electrically separated from
the rest of the vehicle electrical system, it must be electrically separated
from accessory power loads 28.
Verbrugge discloses that “when the switch 36 is opened, the accessory
power loads 28 are electrically connected in parallel to the low voltage
battery 26” and when the switch 36 is closed accessory power loads 28 are
“connected in parallel to the low voltage battery 26.” (Verbrugge Tflf 38, 39.)
“Thus, the low voltage battery 26 is electrically connected in both switch
states.” (Appeal Br. 4.) In other words, Verbrugge’s energy store 26
remains electrically connected to accessory power loads 28 and is not
electrically separated therefrom as would be required by independent
claims 10, 14, and 15.
4
Appeal 2015-001827
Application 12/866,517
As such, the Examiner does not sufficiently establish that, when
Verbrugge’s switch 36 is open, battery 26 is electrically separated from the
rest of the vehicle electrical system.2 Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Verbrugge.
The Examiner does not appear to provide separate findings with
respect to the dependent claims. (See Final Action 3.) Thus we also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 11—13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Verbrugge.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—16 and 18.
REVERSED
2 Insofar as the Examiner provides an alternate finding that Verbrugge’s
battery 26 and accessory power loads 28 together form the claimed “energy
store” (see Answer 3), this finding is not supported by Verbrugge’s
disclosure, as it discloses that at least some of the accessory power loads 28
consume, rather than store, energy (see Verbrugge Tflf 3, 5, 16, 35).
5