Ex Parte Wang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 13, 201814054710 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation