Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2017

14475966 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 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.
14/475,966 09/03/2014 Tae-Kyung Lee 83464862 6935
28395 7590 08/17/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER LAUGHLIN, CHARLES S
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2017 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 @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAE-KYUNG LEE and
BRUCE CARVELL BLAKEMORE
(Applicant: Ford Global Technologies, LLC)
Appeal 2017-000370
Application 14/475,966
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 7, 8, 13—15, 17, and 18 under 35
1 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Specification filed September 3, 2014
(Spec.), the Final Action dated January 5, 2016 (Final Act.), Appellants’
Appeal Brief filed May 17, 2016 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer dated
September 9, 2016 (Ans.), and Appellants’ Reply Brief filed September 27,
2016 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-000370
Application 14/475,966
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Melichar3 in view of Tabuchi.4 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method and powertrain
apparatus with batteries of different chemical types connected in parallel.
Spec. 112, 5 ; see also, e.g., claims 1, 8, and 14. Due to the different
chemistries, the individual batteries have different responses to a demanded
current command of the overall battery system. Spec. 12. Responses of the
batteries, including the current of each battery, are predicted (i.e., calculated)
using a backward-looking model. Spec. H 24, 49. The backward-looking
model takes into account the batteries’ states of charge, wherein the state of
charge of each battery is based on a prior predicted current5 of its respective
battery. Spec. H 24, 28^49.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for a powertrain having a battery system
including parallel connected batteries of different chemical
types, comprising:
operating the powertrain according to predicted currents
of the batteries for the system to output a demanded current, the
currents predicted using a backward-looking model of the
3 Melichar, US 2008/0007224 Al, published January 10, 2008.
4 Tabuchi et al., US 2012/0326726 Al, published December 27, 2012
(“Tabuchi”).
5 We note the claim expression, “prior predicted currents,” does not appear
ipsis verbis in the Specification. Nonetheless, Appellants’ disclosed
backward-looking model includes calculating the state of charge of the
batteries via equations (1) and (2) (Spec. 29 and 30) which utilize i\ and
h, the prior predicted currents from equations 9a and 9b (id. Tffl 46 and 47).
2
Appeal 2017-000370
Application 14/475,966
system which takes into account dynamics of open-circuit
voltages and internal impedances of the batteries on states of
charge of the batteries based on prior predicted currents of the
batteries.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 requires predicting or calculating currents of batteries using
the states of charge of the batteries, and further requires that the states of
charge are based on prior predicted currents of the batteries.
The Examiner finds Melichar lacks predicting currents using states of
charge “based on prior predicted currents of the batteries” and relies on
Tabuchi for this teaching. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds Tabuchi
teaches a state of charge calculation “based on a prior predicted total current
(Iall).”6 Ans. 6 citing Tabuchi || 33—39; see also Final Act. 3 citing
Tabuchi 134. The Examiner also finds the total current Iall “can be
calculated . . . based on the command current Iall* (|0028).” Ans. 7.
Appellants contend Tabuchi does not teach “states of charge based on
prior predicted currents of the batteries,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 5;
see also Reply Br. 3. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in
finding Tabuchi’s total current Iall is a prior predicted current. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1.
As Appellants correctly assert (see Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br.
5), Iall is a measured, not a predicted, current. Appellants explain Tabuchi’s
calculations include real-time and prior time total current Iall values, which
are detected or measured values. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Indeed,
6 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal 2017-000370
Application 14/475,966
Tabuchi teaches that Iall is detected by current detector 17. Tabuchi 128.
Detected current Iall values are not predicted or calculated values, and the
Examiner has not shown that prior detected currents reasonably read on the
“prior predicted currents” of claim 1. Although the Examiner finds Tabuchi
discloses a prior predicted current (see Final Act. 3 citing 134; see also Ans.
6), this finding lacks support. Tabuchi merely discusses that a prior
predicted state of charge SOCz is based on a prior time total current Iall.
And as discussed supra, Iall is detected, not predicted.
Moreover, the Examiner’s finding that total current Iall is calculated
based on command current Iall* (see Ans. 7, citing Tabuchi 128) is also
unsupported by the evidence before us. Tabuchi does not disclose any
calculation of Iall based on Iall* in paragraph 28, and the Examiner has not
identified any other portion of Tabuchi that may be reasonably understood to
teach calculating Iall based on Iall*.
In view of the above, the Examiner’s finding that Tabuchi discloses
states of charge of the batteries “based on prior predicted currents of the
batteries,” as recited in claim 1 lacks an adequate factual predicate in the
applied teachings of Tabuchi. Therefore, Appellants have demonstrated a
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Melichar
and Tabuchi discloses predicting currents using states of charge based on
prior predicted currents of the batteries. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1 over Melichar and Tabuchi.
For the reasons set forth above, the § 103 rejection of claims 7, 8, IS­
IS, 17, and 18 over Melichar and Tabuchi suffers from the same deficiencies
as the § 103 rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we likewise do not sustain the
4
Appeal 2017-000370
Application 14/475,966
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7, 8, 13—15, 17, and 18 over Melichar
and Tabuchi.
DECISION
On the record before us and for the reasons given in Appellants’
Appeal and Reply Briefs, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 7, 8, 13—15, 17, and 18.
REVERSED
5