HANDLEY, Christian Johan Owen. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

15215957 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2020)

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.
15/215,957 07/21/2016 Christian Johan Owen HANDLEY 83675274; 67186-272PUS1 1028
46442 7590 01/22/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
MERLINO, DAVID P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2020 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 CHRISTIAN JOHAN, OWEN HANDLEY, and
KEN J. JACKSON
Appeal 2019-004588
Application 15/215,957
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13, 21, 26, and 27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer 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 2019-004588
Application 15/215,957

2
According to Appellant, the invention “relates to vehicle systems and
methods for controlling electrified vehicles.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 27
are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
illustrative of the appealed claims:
1. A method, comprising:
controlling an electrified vehicle by modifying a power
output of an engine to power an electric heating device;
generating heat with the electric heating device;
increasing a temperature of a battery pack of the electrified
vehicle with the heat,
wherein the electric heating device is separate from and
located external to the battery pack.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 7–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite;
II. Claims 1–12 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hettrich et al. (US 2016/0229282 A1, pub. Aug. 11, 2016)
(“Hettrich”) and Shiraishi et al. (US 2001/0045194 A1, pub.
Nov. 29, 2001) (“Shiraishi”); and
III. Claims 13, 21, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hettrich, Shiraishi, and Yamazaki et al.
(US 2008/0314663 A1, pub. Dec. 25, 2008) (“Yamazaki”).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Indefiniteness rejection
Dependent claims 7 and 8 recite the following:
7. The method as recited in claim 1, comprising
continuing to power the electric heating device until a power
Appeal 2019-004588
Application 15/215,957

3
limit of the battery pack is equal to or within a predefined target
power limit range.
8. The method as recited in claim 7, comprising
lowering the power output of the engine and deactivating the
electric heating device if the power limit of the battery pack is
equal to or within the predefined target power limit range.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). According to the Examiner,
claims 7 and 8 are indefinite because
[t]he term ‘range’ in [each of] claims 7 and 8 is a relative term[,]
which renders the claim indefinite. The term ‘range’ is not
defined by the claim[s], the [S]pecification does not provide a
standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the
scope of the invention. The ‘range’ could vary depending on
vehicle, application, opinion, etc. such that one would not
understand or be reasonabl[y] appraised as to what defines the
range.
Final Action 4. According to the Examiner, claims 9 and 10 are indefinite
“because they depend on claim . . . 8.” Final Action 4.
Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection. Appellant persuades us that “the term ‘predefined
target power limit range’ is not a relative term or a term of degree. . . . The
target power limit range is a predefined value that could easily be set by a
person of ordinary skill in the art of electrified vehicle battery packs.”
Appeal Br. 3.

Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of claims 1–12 and 26
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites the following:
1. A method, comprising:
controlling an electrified vehicle by modifying a power
output of an engine to power an electric heating device;
Appeal 2019-004588
Application 15/215,957

4
generating heat with the electric heating device;
increasing a temperature of a battery pack of the electrified
vehicle with the heat,
wherein the electric heating device is separate from and
located external to the battery pack.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner’s obviousness
rejection relies on a combination of Hettrich and Shiraishi. For the
following reasons, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner
adequately supports that it would have been obvious to control an electrified
vehicle by modifying a power output of an engine to power an electric
heating device that heats a battery pack, as claimed.
We agree with the Examiner that Hettrich discloses “controlling an
electrified vehicle [by using a power output of an engine] to power an
electric heating device” that heats a battery. Final Action 4 (citing Hettrich
¶ 69 (“The electric heater may be powered by . . . combustion engine 101
through a motor module that converts the power generated by . . .
combustion engine 101 to electricity for powering the electric heater.”).
However, contrary to the Examiner’s determination (Answer 4–5), and
consistent with Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 5), Hettrich does not
inherently disclose modifying (e.g., increasing) the power output of the
engine to power the electric heating device that heats the battery pack.
Thus, the question is whether the Examiner adequately supports that it
would have been obvious to operate Hettrich in such a way that the power
output of the engine is modified (e.g., increased) to power an electric heating
device. According to the Examiner, the rejection “relie[s] on” “Shiraishi . . .
to teach that engine speed is raised to increase power produced by the engine
in the case that an additional load is imparted on the engine.” Answer 5.
Appeal 2019-004588
Application 15/215,957

5
More specifically, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of Shiraishi’s
paragraph 64. Final Action 5. Based on our review, we agree with the
Examiner that this portion of Shiraishi discloses that it is known to increase
engine speed to increase engine power output. See Shiraishi ¶ 64
(“However, the electric heater employed in this method needs much power,
increases load on the vehicle for power generation and, consequently, air
quantity is increased and engine speed is raised to increase power generated
by the engine.”).
Although we have reviewed Appellant’s arguments, we do not agree
with Appellant that the Examiner errs because, based on Shiraishi’s
disclosure, one would not operate Hettrich as the Examiner proposes—i.e.,
in such a way that the power output of Hettrich’s engine is modified (e.g.,
increased) to power Hettrich’s electric heating device that heats Hettrich’s
battery pack. See Appeal Br. 4–7. More specifically, Appellant argues that
Shiraishi discloses that using an electric heater to increase the
temperature of a catalytic unit associated with an internal
combustion engine is undesirable because the electric heater
requires too much power, increases power consumption, and
increases costs. . . . Combined with Hettrich’s acknowledgement
that the heater could be powered by a battery system . . ., a person
of ordinary skill in the art would more likely be motivated to
power the heater using battery power rather than by modifying a
power output of the engine because the latter would require too
much power, thereby increasing power consumption and costs.
Id. at 5 (citations to Shiraishi, Hettrich omitted). We are not persuaded at
least because the Examiner’s rejection does not rely on Shiraishi as a reason
to modify Hettrich to use the power output of the engine to power the
electric heating device that heats the battery pack. Instead, as set forth
above, Hettrich already discloses using the power output of the engine to
Appeal 2019-004588
Application 15/215,957

6
power the electric heating device that heats the battery pack. Thus, given
that Hettrich discloses using the power output of the engine to power the
electric heating device that heats the battery pack, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to operate Hettrich in such a way
that the power output of the engine is modified (e.g., increased) to power an
electric heating device, as is disclosed by Shiraishi. In particular, we agree
with the Examiner’s rationale for doing so—that increasing the power output
of Hettrich’s engine would avoid “a poor user experience,” caused by a
decrease in “the power provided to other sources” resulting from providing
power to Hettrich’s electric heating device. Final Action 5.
With respect to Appellant’s argument regarding dependent claim 2
(Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 4), the Examiner supports adequately (Answer 6)
that Shiraishi’s paragraphs 32 and 33 disclose that “modifying the power
output of the engine includes modifying at least one of a speed output and a
torque output of a crankshaft of the engine” (Appeal Br., Claims App.).
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs.
With respect to dependent claim 3, we agree with the Examiner
(Answer 6–7) that the claim recitation “the power output of the engine is
modified to power the electric heating device” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) is
nonlimiting because it is claimed conditionally. Specifically, according to
claim 3, the power output is modified “if a temperature of the battery pack is
less than a target temperature and a power limit of the battery pack is less
than a target power limit” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)—and thus the power-
output-modification recitation would only be reached if a certain condition is
met. The prior art need not disclose nonlimiting, conditional claim
recitations. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB
Appeal 2019-004588
Application 15/215,957

7
Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential). Therefore, inasmuch as Appellant does not
persuade us that claim 3 recites any limiting recitation that is undisclosed by
Hettrich and Shiraishi, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error.
Regarding each of dependent claims 4 and 5, we agree with the
Examiner (Answer 7–8) that each claims’ recitation “the power output of the
engine is modified to power the electric heating device” (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) is not limiting inasmuch as it is claimed conditionally—i.e., the power
output is modified “if an engine coolant temperature is less than a target
engine coolant temperature” (claim 4), and “if a brake specific fuel
consumption of the engine is different from a target brake specific fuel
consumption” (claim 5). Because Appellant does not persuade us that
claims 4 and 5 recite any limiting recitation that is undisclosed by Hettrich
and Shiraishi, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error.
Regarding dependent claims 7, 11, and 26, Appellant does not identify
with specificity any error on the Examiner’s part. See Appeal Br. 9–10.
Instead, Appellant broadly states that no reference discloses certain claim
recitations. Thus, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1–12 and 26.

Rejection III—Obviousness rejection of claims 13, 21, and 27
Appellant argues that the obviousness rejection of these claims is in
error for the same reasons that the rejection of claim 1 is in error. Appeal
Br. 10. Because we sustain claim 1’s rejection, Appellant does not persuade
us that the Examiner errs.
Appeal 2019-004588
Application 15/215,957

8
Appellant further argues that the rejection of claim 13 is in error
because Yamazaki’s paragraph 2 “does not specifically describe using
excess regen power to augment powering the resistive heater.” Id. at 11.
We are not persuaded of error because Appellant’s argument does not
persuasively explain, in sufficient detail, why “[t]he proposed modification
would result in powering the heater using regenerative braking alone rather
than augmenting another power source.” Reply Br. 6. Instead, the
Examiner’s proposed combination includes Hettrich that, as described
above, discloses “controlling an electrified vehicle [by using a power output
of an engine] to power an electric heating device” that heats a battery. Final
Action 4 (citing Hettrich ¶ 69). By way of further explanation, it is unclear
to us why modifying Hettrich based on Yamazaki would result in an
arrangement that omits Hettrich’s disclosed method of heating the battery
pack.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 13, 21, and 27.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 7–
10.
WE AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–13,
21, 26, and 27.

Appeal 2019-004588
Application 15/215,957

9
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
7–10 112(b) Indefiniteness 7–10
1–12, 26 103 Hettrich, Shiraishi 1–12, 26
13, 21, 27 103 Hettrich, Shiraishi,
Yamazaki
13, 21, 27
Overall Outcome: 1–13, 21,
26, 27

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED