Ex Parte TREHARNE et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 10, 2019

14657016 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/657,016 03/13/2015 46442 7590 01/14/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford 400 W. MAPLE RD. SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William David TREHARNE 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. 83498736; 67186-154PUS1 7814 EXAMINER LANG, MICHAEL DEAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2019 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): cgolaw@yahoo.com ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM DAVID TREHARNE, THOMAS SCOTT GEE, and CHRISTOPHER ADAM OCHOCINSKI Appeal2018-005464 1 Application 14/657,0162 Technology Center 3600 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief(" Appeal Br.," filed Jan. 15, 2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 7, 2018), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 8, 2018), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 17, 2017). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-005464 Application 14/657,016 BACKGROUND According to Appellants, the "disclosure relates to a vehicle system and method associated with an electrified vehicle. The vehicle system is configured to precondition a passenger cabin of an electrified vehicle during battery DC fast charging events." Spec. ,r 1. CLAIMS Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A method, comprising: automatically preconditioning a passenger cabin of an electrified vehicle during a direct current (DC) fast charging event of a battery assembly if the electrified vehicle is turned OFF. Appeal Br. 8. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by King. 3 2. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over King in view of Loftus. 4 DISCUSSION Anticipation We are persuaded of reversible error by Appellants argument that King does not disclose precondition of a passenger cabin during a direct current (DC) fast charging event. See Appeal Br. 3-5. 3 King et al., US 2014/0277869 Al, pub. Sept. 18, 2014. 4 Loftus et al., US 2014/0184141 Al, pub. July 3, 2014. 2 Appeal2018-005464 Application 14/657,016 Each of the independent claims requires that preconditioning of a passenger cabin occurs "during a direct current (DC) fast charging event." The Examiner finds that a fast charging event may be interpreted to only require charging when the vehicle is powered off, and based on this interpretation, the Examiner finds that King discloses the relevant limitations in independent claims 1 and 16. See Final Act. 3 (citing King Fig. 2; ,r,r 25- 35). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's interpretation is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. The Specification expressly disclose that "DC fast charging events are immediate charge events that typically last approximately thirty minutes or less." Spec. ,r 41. Further, the Specification discloses that "A DC fast charging system uses direct current of approximately 50A to over 500A to quickly charge the battery assembly 24, versus a typical 4A to 15A for a standard alternating current charger." Id. We find that the Examiner's interpretation requiring only charging while the vehicle is turned off is inconsistent with these disclosures. In particular, one would understand from the Specification that a fast charge event requires significantly higher currents than standard charging events such that charging can be achieved in a relatively short period of time, e.g. thirty minutes or less. Because the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonably broad and because the Examiner has not explained how King discloses a DC fast charging event that is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, we are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims 1 and 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 as anticipated by King. 3 Appeal2018-005464 Application 14/657,016 Obviousness With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 21 and 22, the Examiner does not rely on Loftus in a manner that cures the deficiency in the rejection of the independent claims, as discussed above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-22. REVERSED 4