Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 12, 2022

2021002606 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2022)

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. 16/116,408 08/29/2018 Theodore Joseph Filippi 84036534 4552 28395 7590 01/12/2022 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER MOODY, KYLE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2838 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/12/2022 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THEODORE JOSEPH FILIPPI, ALLAN ROY GALE, KE ZOU, JACEK BRAUNER, KRISHNA PRASAD BHAT, and MICHAEL W. DEGNER Appeal 2021-002606 Application 16/116,408 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4 and 6-15. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002606 Application 16/116,408 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to vehicles and systems for such vehicles comprising, inter alia, a converter configured to recognize when different connector types are plugged into an adaptor coupled to the convertor. Claims 1, 7, 11; Spec. ¶¶ 38, 39; Figs. 3A-3D. Power is output, e.g., from a traction battery, to the adaptor according to an electrical parameter configuration tied to what plug type is used. This enables the traction battery to power high or low voltage loads in addition to providing energy to propel the vehicle. Claims 1, 7; Spec. ¶¶ 2, 38-41. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A vehicle comprising: an electric machine; a traction battery configured to power the electric machine; and a converter configured to responsive to a first signal from a first adaptor indicating a first plug type having a first electrical parameter configuration, output power from the traction battery to the first adaptor according to the first electrical parameter configuration, and responsive to a second signal from a second adaptor indicating a second plug type having a second electrical parameter configuration, output power from the traction battery to the second adaptor according to the second configuration. Claims Appendix of Appeal Br., 1. Appeal 2021-002606 Application 16/116,408 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 142 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King3 in view of Chen4; II. Claims 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Chen, and Spitaels.5 OPINION Because we do not sustain either rejection, we need only focus on the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 11. The Examiner asserts that the independent claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of King and Chen. Non-Final Act. 4- 7. Appellant asserts, inter alia, that the Examiner improperly relied on Chen’s disclosure because Chen is non-analogous art as it is neither in the applicant’s field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventors. Appeal Br. 3. The Examiner responds by outlining the similarities between King and Chen, and “maintains Chen is analogous art to King.” Ans. 3-4. As correctly noted by Appellant, the Examiner misapplies the proper standard for ascertaining whether a reference is analogous art. Reply Br. 2. On this record, the Examiner does not make findings regarding how Chen is either in the applicant’s field of endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the 2 The rejection heading incorrectly lists claim 13 as rejected, but no findings or legal conclusions are made regarding this claim. See Non-Final Action dated April 30, 2020, 4-8 (“Non-Final Act.”). 3 US 7,960,857 B2, issued June 14, 2011. 4 US 6,061,261, issued May 9, 2000. 5 US 7,619,868 B2, issued November 17, 2009. Appeal 2021-002606 Application 16/116,408 4 particular problem with which the inventor is involved. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (identifying the standard for determining whether a prior art reference is analogous art). Rather, the Examiner improperly focuses the analogous art inquiry on a comparison of the prior art references one to another. Ans. 3-4. Under these circumstances, the rejections cannot be sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) / Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14 103(a) King, Chen 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14 9, 13, 15 103(a) King, Chen, Spitaels 9, 13, 15 Overall Outcome 1−4, 6−15 REVERSED