Ex Parte Lovett et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

14721366 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/721,366 05/26/2015
28395 7590 07/02/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karin Lovett
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.
83526531 2650
EXAMINER
FE!, JORDAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARIN LOVETT, CATHLEEN TISTLE, and
WILLIAM DAVID TREHARNE1
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge
Opinion Concurring filed by CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Appellant") is the Applicant as
provided in 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A vehicle comprising:
a traction battery;
an auxiliary battery;
an indicator; and
a controller programmed to, in response to
selectively coupling the traction battery to a voltage
converter via a high-voltage bus to provide current from
the traction battery to the auxiliary battery during an
ignition-off period, activate the indicator to indicate
presence of a voltage on the high-voltage bus.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Bolduc
Scholer
Ono
North
Matsuda
US 2006/0125443 Al
US 2009/0073624 Al
US 2009/0265048 Al
US 2014/0188367 Al
US 2014/0292075 Al
THE REJECTIONS2
June 15, 2006
Mar. 19, 2009
Oct. 22, 2009
July 3, 2014
Oct. 2, 2014
I. Claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Bolduc and Matsuda. Final Act. 5-7.
2 A rejection of claims 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply
with the enablement requirement (Final Act. 3-4) has been withdrawn
(Ans. 8) and is not before us on appeal.
2
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
II. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bolduc, Matsuda, and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art
("AAPA")3 or Scholer. Id. at 7-8.
III. Claims 6, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bolduc, Matsuda, and North. Id. at 8.
IV. Claims 7, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bolduc, Matsuda, North, and Ono. Id. at 9.
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 13-18 as a group. Appeal
Br. 3-4. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-4, 9,
10, and 13-18 stand or fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Bolduc teaches an auxiliary battery, a
traction battery, and a controller programmed to activate an indicator to
indicate a presence of a voltage on a high-voltage bus. Final Act. 5 ( citing
Bolduc, Abstract, Figs. 2-5, ,-J,-J 6-10 and 46-48). The Examiner's rejection,
as articulated, states that Bolduc teaches a controller programmed to activate
the indicator "in response to selectively coupling the traction battery to the
auxiliary battery to provide current from the traction battery to the auxiliary
battery during an ignition-off period." Id. 4 The Examiner acknowledges,
however, that Bolduc fails to teach that "a voltage converter is selectively
3 The Examiner refers to paragraph 23 of the Specification as AAP A. Final
Act. 7-8.
4 The Examiner points out that Bolduc "teaches an auxiliary mode and an
emergency mode in which it is clearly stated that the ignition is off but the
indicator lights are on." Final Act. 3 ( citing Bolduc, Fig. 5, ,-J,-J 46-48).
3
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
coupled to the traction battery to provide current from the traction battery to
the auxiliary battery," and turns to Matsuda for teaching "a voltage converter
and a high voltage bus such that the voltage of one battery is converted to
charge the other battery." Id. (citing Matsuda, Abstract, ,-J,-J 4, 6, 7, and 41-
46). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify
the device taught by Boldu[ c] to include a voltage convert[ e Jr connecting as
taught by Matsuda because it allows for the system to properly convert the
voltage such that different types of batteries (ie high voltage to low voltage)
can charge one another." Id.
In response to Appellant's argument that Bolduc "has nothing to do
with coupling the first and second batteries so one can provide current to the
other" (Appeal Br. 4), the Examiner clarifies:
At its core, applicant's invention is drawn to the alerting system
for a vehicle's battery to which Boldu[ c] has very clear teaching,
however Matsuda was always relied upon for its teaching related
to charging one battery using the other to cover the limitation in
question. It is noted that applicant has not refuted or even
addressed Matsuda in their arguments. It would be impossible
for applicant to properly argue any deficiencies of the
combination of Boldu[ c] and Matsuda without addressing
Matsuda.
Ans. 9 (emphasis omitted). Appellant replies that "[t]he Examiner's
obviousness argument is built upon the false assumption" that Boldu[ c]
discloses a controller programmed to activate the indicator in response to
selectively coupling the traction battery to the auxiliary battery during an
ignition-off period. Reply Br. 2. Appellant continues that "even if Boldu[ c]
is modified to include Matsuda's voltage converter, Boldu[ c ]'s batteries
would still be isolated from one another during the time period in question
(indicator light on, ignition off)." Id. at 3 (boldface omitted).
4
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
Despite the Examiner's statement in the Final Action and Answer that
Bolduc teaches "a controller programmed to, in response to selectively
coupling the traction battery to the auxiliary battery to provide current from
the traction battery to the auxiliary battery during an ignition-off period,
activate the indicator to indicate a presence of a voltage on the high-voltage
bus" (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3), the Examiner has clarified that the rejection
relies on Matsuda "for its teaching related to charging one battery using the
other" and that "Boldu[ c] was not relied upon for the teaching of this
limitation" (Ans. 9) ( emphasis omitted). Thus, the Examiner's rejection
clearly relies on modification of Bolduc to include Matsuda's teaching of
charging one battery using the other, and Appellant has not adequately
explained why Bolduc as modified by Matsuda' s teachings of both (i)
charging one battery using the other and (ii) the use of a voltage converter to
enable such charging, would fail to arrive at the claimed invention.
To the extent Appellant is arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been led to modify Bolduc so as to charge one battery using
the other because "[ o ]ne of the key features of Boldu[ c ]' s auxiliary and
emergency modes is the isolation of its batteries" (Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis
omitted)), Appellant has not adequately explained why Bolduc's teaching of
isolation of the batteries (i.e., isolation of a first battery and connection of a
second battery to load in an auxiliary mode in which the ignition is off
(Bolduc ,-J 46)) would have discouraged one skilled in the art from using one
battery to charge another battery when the ignition is off. That is, Appellant
has not presented any analysis with supporting facts to explain why Bolduc
teaches away from using one battery to charge the other (i.e., that Bolduc's
description of isolating a first battery to charge a second battery would have
5
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from using one battery to charge
another battery). See Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Imps. Int 'l, Inc., 73
F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a reference teaches away
from following a path when a skilled artisan, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from that path).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Bolduc and
Matsuda. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-4, 9,
10, and 13-18 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bolduc and Matsuda.
Rejections II-IV
In contesting the rejections of claims 5-7, 11, 12, 19, and 20,
Appellant relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found
unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1 as the basis for seeking
reversal of the rejection of claims 5-7, 11, 12, 19, and 20. Appeal Br. 4.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with the
rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
of: claim 5 as unpatentable over Bolduc, Matsuda, AAP A, and Scholer;
claims 6, 11, and 19 as unpatentable over Bolduc, Matsuda, and North; and
claims 7, 12, and 20 as unpatentable over Bolduc, Matsuda, North, and Ono.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 13-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bolduc and Matsuda is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bolduc, Matsuda, and AAP A or Scholer is affirmed.
6
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 6, 11, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bolduc, Matsuda, and North is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 7, 12, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bolduc, Matsuda, North, and Ono is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARIN LOVETT, CATHLEEN TISTLE, and
WILLIAM DAVID TREHARNE
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
Technology Center 3600
OPINION CONCURRING
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge
I concur in all respects with the majority opinion, but write separately
to express some additional views on the obviousness of the invention before
us on appeal.
There is nothing new or inventive about charging a battery, in general,
or of charging a second battery from a first battery, in particular.
Furthermore, there is nothing new or inventive about detecting whether the
ignition switch of a vehicle is on or off. Finally, there is nothing new or
inventive about providing a user with an indicator light to inform the user of
a condition.
The claimed invention employs simple digital logic to determine a
condition where: (1) the vehicle ignition is off; and (2) a first battery is
charging a second battery. If these conditions are satisfied, a circuit is
activated to illuminate an indicator light. This is obvious.
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
In our modem day and age, digital logic and control circuitry is
ubiquitous. It resides in every vehicle that we drive and resides in almost
every household appliance that we operate, from coffee makers with
automatic timers, to robotic vacuum cleaners. In almost every conceivable
example where digital logic is used to control operation of an appliance, an
indicator light is provided to signal the status of the system. The state of the
art of modem technology has progressed and advanced from the days of
Henry Ford's Model-T. General knowledge about digital control logic and
indicator circuitry is a tool that resides in the tool box of every person of
even ordinary skill. It is well-known to use digital logic and circuitry to tum
system components on or off upon the occurrence of condition, such as the
alarm on a digital alarm clock. It is equally well known to provide an
indicator light to indicate the status of a digital system, such as activating an
LED on the face of a digital alarm clock to indicate that an alarm time has
been "set." Such knowledge is readily transferrable to almost any
conceivable operating circuit where the system designer desires an operator
to be informed of system status.
We build and create by bringing to the tangible and
palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple
logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes
even genius. These advances, once part of our shared
knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation
starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels
of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of
ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under
the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather
than promote, the progress of useful arts.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,427 (2007). Thus, the law
deems obvious those modest, routine, everyday, incremental improvements
2
Appeal2018-005843
Application 14/721,3 66
of an existing product or process that do not involve sufficient inventiveness
to merit patent protection. Ritchie v. Vast Resources, Inc., 563 F.3d 1334,
1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The foregoing principle from the Ritchie case applies
here.
I CONCUR.
3