Ex Parte Roeder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2019

15112747 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/112,747 07/20/2016
34044 7590 03/14/2019
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Patrick Roeder
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.
022862-2468-usoo 1003
EXAMINER
BERHANU, SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2019 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PA TRICK ROEDER
and NILUEFER BABA
Appeal2019-000265
Application 15/112,747 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
MERREL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-12, all of the pending claims on appeal. See Appeal Br. 8. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
1 Robert Bosch GmbH ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided for under
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is also identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party
in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2019-000265
Application 15/112,747
Appellant's invention relates to determining, in a battery, a specified
critical charge state (SOCkrit), which is an upper charge state limit below
which a thermal runaway of the battery does not occur and to discharging
the battery until a charge state of the battery is below the SOCkrit if a
predefined state of the battery or a consumer of the battery is recognized to
exist. See Spec. ,r,r 5, 11, 23.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below with the dispositive disputed limitation (the "disputed
limitation") italicized:
1. A method for operating a battery in a consumer, the
method comprising:
determining (S 10) at least one operating parameter which
describes the state of the battery or the consumer;
comparing (S20) the at least one determined operating
parameter with one reference value in each case in order to
recognize whether a predefined state exists;
determining a specified critical charge state (SOCkrit), the
specified critical charge state (SOCkriJ being an upper charge
state limit below which a thermal runaway of the battery does
not occur; and
discharging (S32) the battery until a charge state of the
battery is below a specified critical charge state (SOCkrit) of the
battery if the predefined state exists,
wherein by discharging the battery, an energy store 1s
charged by a discharge flow from the battery.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix, 9.
2
Appeal2019-000265
Application 15/112,747
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Kikuchi
Haid et al. ("Haid")
Jabaji et al.
("Jabaji")
Vo
Abe et al. ("Abe")
US 2003/0025479 Al
US 6,570,364 B2
US 7,202,574 B2
US 2012/0299527 Al
US 2013/0187465 Al
REJECTIONS
Feb. 6,2003
May 27, 2003
Apr. 10, 2007
Nov. 29, 2012
July 25, 2013
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jabaji, Kikuchi, and Abe. Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jabaji, Kikuchi, Abe, and Vo. Final Act. 5---6.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jabaji, Kikuchi, Abe, and Haid. Final Act. 6-7.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and issues
raised by Appellant. Arguments not made in the Appeal Brief are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2017).
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of Claim 1
In support of the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner notes "[ n ]either
Jabaji nor Kikuchi" teach the disputed limitation. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner, however, finds Abe's discussion of setting the upper limit value
of a state of charge ("SOC") at 90% teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 9-11 (citing Abe ,r 59).
3
Appeal2019-000265
Application 15/112,747
Specifically, with respect to Abe, the Examiner finds:
Abe discloses limiting the maximum charge level to 90% SOC
value. Appellant's disclosure disclosed thermal runaway of the
battery occurs above 90% of SOC [see ,r 0011 of Appellant's
disclosure]. Thus, it is logical to one ordinary skill in the art to
conclude that above of 90% SOC value battery thermal runaway
happens. Abe clearly discloses this particular range or value by
setting the upper limit-charging threshold at the 90% of SOC of
the battery [see ,r 0059]. Abe's maximum SOC threshold is the
same as appellant's thermal runaway limit.
Ans. 3.
Appellant argues "Abe does not teach making a determination of a
critical charge state based on a charge where thermal runaway occurs. Abe
sole determination is based on a charge state to prolong battery life. . . . The
upper charge state of Abe has nothing to do with thermal runaway and Abe
does not teach the claimed limitation." Reply Br. 2. In contrast, the claimed
"critical charge state is determined based on a level of charge below which
thermal runaway will not occur .... " Id.
We find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Abe relates to a solar
power charging system which carries out automatic charge-discharge control
of a battery comprised of storage cell packs, while taking into account lack
of storage cell pack characteristic uniformity, referred to in Abe as
"characteristic dispersion," or "dispersion." See Abe Abstract, ,r,r 6, 7. The
paragraph of Abe cited by the Examiner describes setting an upper SOC at
90% as one way to account for this dispersion. Id. at ,r 59. The Examiner
finds Abe's setting of an upper SOC at 90% teaches the disputed limitation
because Abe's 90% SOC value is the same as Appellant's thermal runaway
limit SOCkrit. See Ans. 3.
4
Appeal2019-000265
Application 15/112,747
As an initial matter, we note the Examiner's assumption that SOCkrit is
fixed at 90% is erroneous. Rather, Appellant's Specification provides an
exemplary determination made for a specific battery composition in which
SOCkrit "lies particularly between 80% and 90% of the full state of charge of
the battery," rather than at 90%, as stated by the Examiner. Spec. ,r 11; see
also ,r 23. Figure 1 of the Specification also shows that, in the example,
SOCkrit is determined to be somewhere in between 80% and 90%. Compare
Figure 1 graph B (SOC of 80%) with graph C (SOC of90%). Also, in
describing Figure 1, the Specification specifically discloses "SOC of 90% >
SOCkrit > SOC of 80%." Spec. ,r 23. Thus, the Examiner's finding that
Abe's setting of an upper SOC at 90% equates to the claimed SOCkrit
because SOCkrit is also fixed at 90% is erroneous because the Specification
instead teaches determining SOCkrit to be at somewhere between 80% and
90% rather than at 90%. Moreover, the Specification discloses that SOCkrit,
rather than being a fixed value such as 90%, must be determined, as recited
in the claim, because SOCkrit will vary depending on the battery
composition. See Spec. ,r 25.
We also agree with Appellant's argument that "[t]he upper charge
state of Abe has nothing to do with thermal runaway." Reply Br. 2.
Because Abe shows no recognition of thermal runaway, the Examiner has
not demonstrated Abe's setting of an upper SOC at 90% is determined based
on "being an upper charge state limit below which a thermal runaway of the
battery does not occur," as recited in claim 1. Thus, the Examiner does not,
on the record before us, show that Abe's upper charge limit of 90% teaches
or suggests the claimed determining of a specified critical charge state
SOCkrit. See Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 3--4.
5
Appeal2019-000265
Application 15/112,747
Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown how Abe, alone or in
combination with the other cited references, teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant for claim 1, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant's other arguments. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 10, which recites limitations commensurate in scope with
claim 1. We, likewise, do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-
9, 11, and 12.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12.
REVERSED
6