Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2018

14054710 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/054,710 10/15/2013
36865 7590 04/13/2018
MCCOY RUSSELL LLP
806 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xu Wang
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.
83392545 1550
EXAMINER
DIGNAN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2018 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 XU WANG, CHU AN HE,
and XIAOGUANG CHANG
Appeal2017-007717
Application 14/054,710
Technology Center 1700
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 21, and 22 3 of
1 This Decision refers to the Specification dated Oct 15, 2013 ("Spec."), the
Final Rejection dated July 13, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief dated
Jan. 13, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated Feb. 22, 2017
("Ans."), and the Reply Brief dated Apr. 24, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the applicant (hereinafter
"Appellants") and the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Appellants cancelled claims 8-13 and 22 after the Final Rejection, and the
Examiner modified the grounds of rejection in the Advisory Action dated
Appeal2017-007717
Application 14/054,710
Application 14/054,710. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a system for operating a
battery pack of a vehicle, which reduces negative effects of temperature
sensor degradation on battery pack operation. Appeal Br. 9. The system
senses battery pack temperature based on output from a temperature sensor,
estimates battery pack temperature based on a battery pack fan speed, then
compares those sensed and estimated temperatures and uses the comparison
as a basis for adjustment of battery pack output power. Appeal Br. 9-10.
According to Appellants,
the output of a sensor sensing battery pack fan speed may
provide valuable information as to confirming the currently
sensed battery pack temperature .
. . . [The estimated and sensed temperatures] may be
compared so as to verify that the temperature sensor output
accurately reflects the current battery back temperature. If the
temperature sensor output does not accurately reflect the current
battery pack temperature, actions may be taken to mitigate the
effect of the faulty temperature sensor on battery pack
operation, such as limiting battery pack output power.
Id. at 10.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below with
paragraphing and indentation added for readability:
Nov. 17, 2016, to reflect cancellation of those claims. See Appeal Br. 8.
Therefore, the only claims at issue in the appeal are 1, 3-5, 7, and 21. Id.
2
Appeal2017-007717
Application 14/054,710
1. A system for operating a battery pack of a vehicle,
compnsmg:
a battery pack including a temperature sensor; and
a controller including non-transitory instructions for
determining a currently sensed battery pack
temperature based on output of the temperature sensor,
determining a battery pack fan speed based on
output of a sensor sensing fan speed,
determining an estimated battery pack temperature
based on the battery pack fan speed and not based on the
currently sensed battery pack temperature,
adjusting battery pack output power in response to
a comparison of the estimated battery pack temperature
and the currently sensed battery pack temperature, and
indicating battery pack degradation in response to
the comparison.
Appeal Br. 21, Claims App.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Kato 4 and Hensley. 5 Ans. 2.
2. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 21 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Kato and Avny. 6
Id.
4 Kato et al., US 6,377, 880 Bl, Apr. 23, 2012 ("Kato").
5 Hensley et al., US 2013/0110307, May 2, 2013 ("Hensley").
6 Avny et al., US 2010/0113216 Al, May 6, 2010 ("Avny").
3
Appeal2017-007717
Application 14/054,710
Rejection 1
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Kato teaches a system for detecting failure of
a cooling fan during operation of a battery pack, including determining
battery pack temperature based on the output of temperature sensors, and
estimating battery pack temperature based on a temperature difference
between a coolant (e.g. air from a fan), the sensed battery temperature, and
electric power output, and comparing it to an actual temperature change
using sensed battery temperature. Ans. 2-3, 5---6 (providing citations to
Kato). The Examiner finds that Kato' s fan failure detecting system thus
senses whether a fan is failing, i.e. "whether it is on or off." Ans. 11. The
Examiner further finds that Kato' s system adjusts the battery pack output
power in response to this comparison if an abnormality is detected and
battery pack degradation is indicated via an alarm signal. Id. at 6.
The Examiner acknowledges that Kato is silent as to whether
estimated battery pack temperature is "not based on the currently sensed
battery pack temperature," as recited in claim 1, but finds that Hensley
teaches estimation of temperature based on a fan control signal rather than
direct temperature reading from a temperature sensor. Ans. 3--4 (providing
citations to Hensley). The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kato' s temperature
estimation unit so that it relied only upon fan control signal values instead of
temperature sensor data, because Hensley teaches that fan control signal
values are a useful way to model temperature in systems where multiple
sensors are being used (Ans. 4) and in order to simplify Kato's temperature
change calculation or provide redundancy in the system. Ans. 9-10.
4
Appeal2017-007717
Application 14/054,710
Appellants argue that the rejection is deficient for the following
reasons: (1) Hensley's estimation of battery pack temperature "is based on a
currently sensed battery pack temperature" (Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 2-5);
(2) Kato does not teach "determining a battery pack fan speed based on
output of a sensor sensing fan speed," as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 16;
Reply Br. 10-11); and (3) the rationale for modifying Kato with Hensley is
not supported by evidence (Reply Br. 5-6). We are persuaded by
Appellants' argument that Kato does not teach "a sensor sensing fan speed,"
and therefore find that the rejection is based on harmful error, for the reasons
argued by Appellants and further discussed below.
The Examiner determines that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the claim limitation "determining a battery pack fan speed based on
output of a sensor sensing fan speed" is at least a sensor which performs a
basic "on" or "off' threshold calculation based on any number of inputs.
Ans. 12. Based on that claim interpretation, the Examiner finds that Kato's
failure determination unit 66 "senses" "whether a fan is working or failing,
whether it is on or off." Ans. 11. Appellants dispute the Examiner's claim
interpretation (see Appeal Br. 16, Reply Br. 10-11 ), and further argue that
even if the Examiner's interpretation is accepted, Kato does not teach the
limitation because its failure determination unit 66 does not indicate whether
a cooling fan is on or off, but only determines if there is a failure of the
cooling fan. Reply Br. 10. For example, Kato would determine a cooling
fan was failing if a fan had reduced capacity due to blocking of its inlet or
outlet, even though the fan was "on." Id. at 10-11. Accordingly, even under
the Examiner's proposed claim interpretation, the finding that Kato teaches
"a sensor sensing fan speed" lacks evidentiary support.
5
Appeal2017-007717
Application 14/054,710
Rejection 2
Rejection 2 is based on the same erroneous finding concerning Kato
as Rejection 1. Accordingly, we also reverse Rejection 2.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 21.
REVERSED
6