Ex Parte Sioma

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

14719278 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

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.
14/719,278 05/21/2015 Edward M. Sioma Sioma-6 9615
32132 7590 10/19/2016
LAMORTE & ASSOCIATES P.C.
P.O. BOX 434
YARDLEY, PA 19067
EXAMINER
HENZE-GONGOLA, DAVID V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2016 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):
uspatlawl @ verizon.net
mail@uspatlaw.com
malamorte@verizon.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD M. SIOMA
Appeal 2016-008124
Application 14/719,278
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, GEORGE C. BEST, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—15 of Application 14/719,278
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (April 14, 2016).1
Appellant2 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 On June 3, 2015, a Petition to Make Special based upon the applicant’s age
was granted. Accordingly, we have taken this appeal up out of turn.
2 James Sioma and Lawrence Sioma are identified as the real parties in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008124
Application 14/719,278
BACKGROUND
The ’278 Application describes a system in method for recharging a
rechargeable battery. Spec. 1. In prior art systems, a preselected charging
voltage and current are fed into the rechargeable battery. Id. at 3. The
battery charger’s output is monitored using a voltage comparator. Id. The
voltage comparator compares the output voltage of the battery charger to a
preselected voltage set point. Id. When the battery’s output voltage reaches
the set point, the battery is deemed fully charged. Id.
According to Appellant, this methodology assumes that the output
voltage received at the voltage comparator is exactly equal to the voltage
output produced by the rechargeable battery and ignores a number of
variables. Id. These variables include the resistance of the wires that lead to
and from the battery, the battery’s internal resistance, and any corrosion that
may have occurred at the connection between the wires in the battery. Id. at
3^4. According to Appellant, this leads the voltage comparator to turn off
the charging current before the battery is fully charged. Id. at 4.
Appellant’s methodology is said to dynamically monitor the voltage
drops produced by the variables discussed above. Id. at 5. Appellant’s
system adjusts the charging system based upon this dynamic monitoring to
ensure that the rechargeable battery can be fully charged without incurring
the danger of overcharging the battery. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’278 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below:
1. A recharging system, comprising:
a source of a DC charging current;
a rechargeable battery that supplies a true battery voltage, said
rechargeable battery having an internal resistance;
2
Appeal 2016-008124
Application 14/719,278
a first circuit point that receives said DC charging current;
an incoming lead that extends from said first circuit point to said
rechargeable battery;
a second circuit point;
a ground lead that extends from said rechargeable battery to said
second circuit point,
wherein said incoming lead and said ground lead have lead
resistances,
wherein said internal resistance and said lead
resistances produce an error voltage when said DC
charging current flows through said rechargeable
battery and said leads,
wherein said error voltage combines with
said true battery voltage to produce an
inflated voltage at said second circuit point;
a filtering circuit that receives both a first voltage input from said
first circuit point and a second voltage input from said second
circuit point,
wherein said filtering circuit quantifies said error voltage
utilizing said first voltage input and said second voltage
input;
a subtractor[3] circuit that receives said inflated voltage and said
error voltage after being quantified,
wherein said subtractor circuit subtracts said error voltage
from said inflated voltage to quantify said true battery
voltage;
a voltage comparator that compares said true battery voltage,
after being quantified, to a voltage set point; and
3 We note that Appellant’s Figures label subtractor circuit 30 as
“SUBSTRACTOR CIRCUIT.” If prosecution of the ’278 Application
continues, Appellant should consider correcting these errors.
3
Appeal 2016-008124
Application 14/719,278
a switch, disposed between said source of a DC charging current
and said first circuit point, that is controlled by said voltage
comparator,
wherein said switch receives said DC charging current and
directs said DC charging current to said rechargeable
battery should said voltage set point be greater than said
true battery voltage.
Appeal Br. 25—26 (Claims App.) (emphasis, some paragraphing, and
indentation added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Lundstrom4 and St-Jacques.5 Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 8—10 and 13—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom and Arnold.6
Final Act. 8.
3. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom, Arnold, and St-
Jacques. Final Act. 12.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1—7 as unpatentable over
the combination of Lundstrom and St-Jacques. Final Act. 2. Appellant
4 US 5,808,443, issued September 15, 1998.
5 US 2009/0278489 Al, published November 12, 2009.
6 US 2005/0194933 Al, published September 8, 2005.
4
Appeal 2016-008124
Application 14/719,278
argues for reversal of this rejection based upon the limitations set forth in
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6—14. Thus, we shall limit our discussion to claim
1. Dependent claims 2—7 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Lundstrom describes or
suggests every limitation in claim 1, including a device that is disposed
between the source of the charging current and the first circuit point and is
controlled by the voltage comparator. Final Act. 5. The Examiner,
however, found that Lundstrom does not explicitly disclose that this device
is a switch which receives DC current. Id. at 6. The Examiner further found
that St-Jacques describes a circuit in which the device is a switch which
receives DC current. Id. (citing St-Jacques Figure 4). Based upon these
findings, the Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify
Lundstrom to further include the device is a switch which receives DC
current for the purpose of enabling a pulsed charging of the battery which
minimizes sulfation deterioration, as taught by St-Jacques (paragraph 12).”
Id.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed
because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
See Appeal Br. 8—14. Inter alia, Appellant argues that Lundstrom and St-
Jacques—whether considered individually or in combination—do not
describe or suggest a filtering circuit that quantifies the error voltage using
the voltage data derived from the first and second voltage inputs. Id. at 12—
13.
We begin, as we must, by considering the relevant claim language.
See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351
5
Appeal 2016-008124
Application 14/719,278
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Only when a claim is properly understood can a
determination be made . . . whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders
obvious the claimed invention.”).
The relevant portion of claim 1 reads:
a filtering circuit that receives both a first voltage input from said
first circuit point and a second voltage input from said second
circuit point,
wherein said filtering circuit quantifies said error voltage
utilizing said first voltage input and said second voltage
input;
Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis, paragraphing, and indentation added).
The Examiner found that Lundstrom describes
a filtering circuit that receives both a first voltage input from said
first circuit point and a second voltage input from said second
circuit point, wherein said filtering circuit quantifies said error
voltage utilizing said first voltage input and said second voltage
input [figure 1, amplifier 34, low pass filter 38a, ADC 40a,
microcontroller 30a; figure 3, steps 122 and 124, the error
voltage is quantified by determining the total series resistance—
the combined resistance “R” of the lead resistances and internal
resistance-in step 122 using the first voltage input and second
voltage input (each of the voltage measurements V1 and V2 of
voltage “V” of figure 1 inherently require inputs from the two
circuit points) and then multiplying this resistance times the
charging current {the “R*I_ave” term in the equation of step 124
is the error voltage), thus error voltage is “quantified” utilizing
said first voltage input and said second voltage input; col. 5, lines
20-31, amplifier 34 receives voltage “V” across the capacitor
14]; ....
Final Act. 4—5 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s factual finding is incorrect
because Lundstrom’s filtering circuit does not determine the error voltage
before passing data onto the subtractor circuit. Appeal Br. 9-11.
6
Appeal 2016-008124
Application 14/719,278
We agree with Appellant on this point. In Appellant’s embodiments,
high pass filter 26 removes the DC component—i.e., VBattery—from the data
it receives from the first and second voltage inputs and passes the remaining
signal—i.e.,VError—to the subtractor circuit. Spec. 10-11; Fig. 1. In contrast,
Lundstrom uses low pass filter 38a to smooth the measured total voltage—
i.e., Vinflated in the terms used by the ’278 Application’s Specification—and
passes that information along with information concerning instantaneous
measurements of voltage and current to microprocessor 30a. Lundstrom
Figure 1; col. 5,1. 67—col. 6,1. 17. Assuming arguendo that the Examiner is
correct in finding that a portion of microprocessor 30a is part of the claimed
filtering circuit and a (presumably different) portion of microprocessor 30a
comprises the subtractor circuit, Lundstrom’s discussion makes it clear that
the term R*I_ave—which corresponds to VError, see Final Act. 5—is only
transiently calculated during microprocessor 30a ’s calculation of Visauery
using the equation
— Kive — Oave * ^)-
Lundstrom col. 5,1. 50-col. 6,1. 41. In other words, the transient
determination of VEn-or occurs in the portion of microprocessor that
corresponds to the claimed subtractor circuit, not the filtration circuit.
The Examiner’s erroneous factual determination requires reversal of
the obviousness rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of
claims 2—7. Because we reverse the rejection of claims 1—7 due to this error,
we need not and do not express any opinion regarding Appellant’s other
arguments for reversal of the rejection of claim 1.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 8—10 and 13—15 as
unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom and Arnold. Final Act. 8—
12. Appellant presents separate arguments for reversal of the rejection of
7
Appeal 2016-008124
Application 14/719,278
independent claims 8 and 15. See Appeal Br. 14—22. Dependent claims 9,
10, 13, and 14 are alleged to be patentable based upon their dependence
from independent claim 8. Id. at 19. Accordingly, we shall confine our
discussion to independent claims 8 and 15. The dependent claims subject to
this rejection will stand or fall with independent claim 8. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 8. In relevant part, claim 8 reads “a filtering circuit that. . .
quantifies said error voltage.” Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.). The Examiner
found that Lundstrom describes such a circuit. Final Act. 9 (citing
Lundstrom Fig. 1; col. 5,1. 50-col. 6,1. 18). For the reasons discussed
above, we have determined that this finding is erroneous. We, therefore,
reverse the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 15. In relevant part, claim 15 reads “providing a filtering
circuit that. . . quantifies said error voltage.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.).
The Examiner found that Lundstrom describes such a circuit. Final Act. 9
(citing Lundstrom Fig. 1; col. 5,1. 50-col. 6,1. 18). For the reasons
discussed above, we have determined that this finding is erroneous. We,
therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 15.
As discussed above, the Examiner’s erroneous factual determination
requires reversal of the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 15. Thus, we
also reverse the rejection of claims 9, 10, 13, and 14. Because we reverse
the rejection of claims 8—10 and 13—15 due to this error, we need not and do
not express any opinion regarding Appellant’s other arguments for reversal
of the rejection of claims 8 and 15.
Rejection 3. Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 11 and 12
as unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom, Arnold, and St-Jacques
by virtue of their dependence from independent claim 8. Appeal Br. 22—23.
8
Appeal 2016-008124
Application 14/719,278
Because we have reversed the rejection of claim 8, we also reverse the
rejection of claims 11 and 12.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1—
15 of the ’278 Application.
REVERSED
9