Ex Parte Schaffnit

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2016

12816596 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/816,596 06/16/2010
65798 7590 04/13/2016
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jochen Schaffnit
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.
P010579-FCA-CHE 3736
EXAMINER
VO, JIMMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOCHEN SCHAFFNIT
Appeal2014-008874
Application 12/816,596
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. Sl\1ITH, BEVERLY A. FF~AN!(L!N, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is GM Global
Technology Operations LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008874
Application 12/816,596
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as a system for using
regenerative braking power during a hybrid vehicle's start/stop operation to
start a fuel stack. Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 6, and 12 are the independent claims
on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for using regenerative braking power to start a
fuel cell stack for system restart during a start/stop operation of
a fuel cell hybrid vehicle, said method comprising:
disconnecting the fuel cell stack from a high voltage bus
line for the start-stop operation;
using regenerative braking power provided by an electric
traction system to recharge a battery in the hybrid vehicle when
the fuel cell stack is disconnected;
reconnecting the fuel cell stack to the high voltage bus
line; and
providing at least some of the regenerative braking power
from the electric traction system to a compressor that provides
cathode air to the fuel cell stack when a request to re-start the
fuel cell stack is received and the stack is reconnected to the high
voltage bus line, wherein a power signal identifies how much
power is required by the compressor.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below when rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Tamor et al.
(hereinafter "Tam or")
Hasuka et al.
(hereinafter "Hasuka")
Bouchon
us 5,998,885 Dec. 7, 1999
US 2004/0013920 Al Jan. 22, 2004
US 2005/0057098 Al Mar. 17, 2005
2
Appeal2014-008874
Application 12/816,596
Richards et al.
(hereinafter "Richards")
Kang
Milacic et al.
(hereinafter "Milacic")
US 2005/0202292 Al Sep. 15, 2005
US 2008/0087479 Al Apr. 17, 2008
US 2011/0008689 Al Jan. 13, 2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections for our review (Ans.
2):
Rejection 1. Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Kang, Tamor, Richards, and Hasuka.
Final Act. 2.
Rejection 2. Claims 3 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Kang, Tamor, Richards, Hasuka, and
Bouchon. Id. at 6.
Rejection 3. Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Kang, Tamor, P"-ichards, Hasuka, and l\.1ilacic. Id.
at 8.
Rejection 4. Claims 6, 7, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Kang, Tamor, and Hasuka. Id.
Rejection 5. Claims 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Kang, Tamor, Hasuka, and Bouchon.
Id. at 11.
Rejection 6. Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Kang, Tamor, Hasuka, and Milacic. Id. at 12.
Rejection 7. Claims 12, 13, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Kang, Tamor, Bouchon, and Hasuka.
Id. at 13.
3
Appeal2014-008874
Application 12/816,596
Rejection 8. Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Kang, Tamor, Bouchon, Hasuka, and Milacic. Id.
at 17.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious over the combination of
Kang, Tamor, Richards, and Hasuka. Final Act. 2. Appellant's arguments
responding to this rejection are not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the cited references do not teach claim 1 's
recitation "providing at least some of the regenerative braking power from
the electric traction system to a compressor that provides cathode air to the
fuel cell stack when a request to re-start the fuel cell stack is received and
the stack is reconnected to the high voltage bus line, wherein a power signal
identifies how much power is required by the compressor." Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner, however, explains the basis of the rejection describing how
this recitation would have been obvious in view of the combined references.
Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2--4. The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's
explanation of the references.
Moreover, we note that Kang teaches regenerative braking power
being supplied to "stack starting parts" which include "an air or oxygen
supply device." Kang i-fi-152, 66. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
have readily recognized the compressor used in conjunction with fuel cell
start-up in Tamor as a typical air supply device. See, e.g., Tamor 1: 17-29;
2:60-67. As the Examiner explains, Richards and Hasuka explain
disconnecting and reconnecting the fuel cell stack and use of a power signal
identifying power required by the compressor. Final Act. 4--5. Thus, we
4
Appeal2014-008874
Application 12/816,596
agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of these references
render obvious the cited language of claim 1.
Second, Appellant argues that the cited references cannot properly be
combined. We, however, agree with the Examiner's determination as to
why a person of skill in the art would have been inclined to combine these
references. Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2--4. We note that each of these references
are directed to the same field of endeavor. Kang and Tamor both relate to
use of regenerative braking power in combination with a vehicle fuel cell.
See, e.g., Kang i-f 66; Tamor Fig. 1, 3:53-59. Richards relates to fuel cell
start up. Richards Abstract, i-f 41. Hasuka relates to control of a fuel cell's
compressor. Hasuka Abstract, i-fi-1 24, 27. A person of skill in the art would
have recognized that the teachings of each of these references would have
improved the systems of Kang and/or Tamor in the same manner each
reference's teachings improve the system described therein. Application of
each reference to the systems of Kang and/or Tamor is no more than
predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions.
Thus, the Examiner properly considered the combined references. Cf KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Third, Appellant argues in reply that Kang and Hasuka do not teach
"regenerative braking power provid[ing] cathode air where a request to re-
start the stack is received regardless of battery state of charge." Reply Br. 2.
We do not consider this argument because it is raised for the first time in
reply. All arguments not specifically and timely raised in the principal
Appeal Brief are considered waived absent a showing of good cause. In re
Hyatt, 211F.3d1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Thus,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-008874
Application 12/816,596
Appellant argues that Tamor does not disclose claim 2's recitation of
"providing a command signal to a bi-directional DC converter that
selectively distributes power to the compressor and the battery." Appeal Br.
11. We agree with the Examiner, however, that the combination of
references teaches this element. Ans. 4; Final Act. 6; see also In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references").
Kang teaches distribution of regenerative braking power to stack
starting parts (e.g., a compressor as taught by Tamor) and a super capacitor.
Kang i-f 64. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
replace the super capacitor of Kang with the battery of Tamor. Final Act. 3.
Tamor explains the benefits of such a modification. Tamor 3:45-58. Tamor
also explains use of a bidirectional converter to manage distribution. Id. at
3: 15-26; Final Act. 6.
Appellant fails to articulate any particular reason as to why the
combination of references do not teach the recited language for the reasons
explained by the Examiner. We thus sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 2.
Rejection 2
Claim 3 recites, "The method according to claim 1 further comprising
determining an upper voltage limit that identifies a maximum bus voltage
and preventing the electric traction system from providing regenerative
braking power to the high voltage bus line that exceeds the upper voltage
limit." Claim 4 recites, "The method according to claim 3 wherein
determining the upper voltage limit includes using the stack voltage."
6
Appeal2014-008874
Application 12/816,596
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 4 as obvious over the
combination of Kang, Tamor, Richards, Hasuka, and Bouchon. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner explains that Bouchon discloses "controlling energy
contributions onto the energy bus from the regenerative braking system to
prevent contributions from exceeding a desired total contribution." Id. We
agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings of fact regarding this rejection.
See also Ans. 4--5.
Appellant argues that Bouchon does not teach prevent a system from
providing regenerative braking power that exceeds an upper voltage limit
and instead only teaches "preventing contributions of energy from exceeding
a desired total." Appeal Br. 13. We do not agree. A person of ordinary skill
would have understood Bouchon's teachings regarding desired total energy
contributions as constraining voltage. Bouchon i-fi-1 Abstract, 10, 48. For
example, Bouchon discusses prior solutions of controlling over-voltage (id.
at i-fi-f l 0, 11) and summarize its own invention as proactively preventing "an
over-voltage condition from occurring" (id. at i-f 14).
Appellant also refers back to arguments regarding claim 1. Appeal
Br. 13. For the reasons explained above, those arguments are not
persuasive. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that claims 3
and 4 would have been obvious in view of the cited art, and we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 4.
Rejection 3
Appellant addresses this rejection by relying upon on arguments
regarding claim 1. For the reasons explained above, those arguments are not
persuasive. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5.
Rejection 4
7
Appeal2014-008874
Application 12/816,596
Appellant makes arguments very similar to arguments made as to
claims 1 and 2. For the reasons explained above, these arguments are not
persuasive. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and
conclusions as to this rejection (Final Act. 9-11; Ans. 5-7), we agree with
the Examiner's conclusions, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection.
Rejection 5
Appellant refers back to arguments regarding claims 3 and 4. For the
reasons explained above, those arguments are not persuasive. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 9.
Rejection 6
Appellant refers back to arguments regarding claims 1 and 7. For the
reasons explained above, those arguments are not persuasive. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection.
Rejection 7
Appellant refers back to arguments regarding claims 1 and 6. For the
reasons explained above, those arguments are not persuasive. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection.
Rejection 8
Appellant relies upon claim 14's dependence on claim 12. As
explained above, Appellant's argument for claim 12 is not persuasive. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-15. We affirm the Examiner's decision.
8
Appeal2014-008874
Application 12/816,596
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9