Ex Parte BRANDNER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2018

12683708 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/683,708 01/07/2010
23911 7590 10/17/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael BRANDNER
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.
105440.62173US 3686
EXAMINER
BERHANU, SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2018 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
apomeroy@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL BRANDNER, THOMAS MUELLER,
ROLAND SCHWAB, BERND ZIEGLER,
and KLAUS HAUSER
Appeal2017-011003
Application 12/683,708
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Specification explains that power output from an
accumulator battery must be controlled to avoid damage to the battery
caused by a total discharge. Spec. ,r,r 3, 19. According to the Specification,
1 Appellants identify Hilti Aktiengesellschaft as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed February 27, 2017 ("App. Br."), 1.
Appeal 2017-011003
Application 12/683,708
Appellants' invention provides a control method and system that prevents a
total discharge of an accumulator battery. Spec. ,r,r 6, 19.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below with contested language italicized:
1. A control method for an accumulator battery, which
includes an interface for communicating with a hand power tool
and for supplying the hand power tool, comprising the steps of:
receiving characterizing data of the hand power tool
and/or data about an operating process of the hand power tool
from the hand power tool by the accumulator battery via the
interface,
wherein characterizing data about a maximum
permissible duration for which a voltage limit of the
accumulator battery and/or of individual cells of the
accumulator battery is fallen short of are received from the
hand power tool by the accumulator battery via the interface
and
if a total discharge protection of the accumulator battery
determines that the voltage limit has been fallen short of longer
than the maximum permissible duration, a warning signal is
output by the accumulator battery to the hand power tool via
the interface.
App. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis and indentations added).
The Examiner sets forth the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Denning,2 Bertness, 3 and Wiesner4
in the Final Office Action entered April 28, 2016 ("Final Act."), and
maintains the rejection in the Examiner's Answer entered June 30, 2017
("Ans.").
2 US 2005/0248309 Al, published November 10, 2005.
3 US 6,888,468 B2, issued May 3, 2005.
4 US 2008/023 8609 Al, published October 2, 2008.
2
Appeal 2017-011003
Application 12/683,708
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellants' contentions, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in
the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence Appellants provide for each ground of rejection
Appellants contest. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the examiner
had failed to make a prima facie case, "it has long been the Board's practice
to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's
rejections").
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 as a group on the basis of
independent claims 1, 4, and 12-14, which Appellants argue together. App.
Br. 5-8. Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative, and decide the
appeal as to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 based on claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Denning discloses an accumulator battery
that includes an interface for communicating with a cordless power tool.
Final Act. 2 ( citing Denning Fig. 1 ). The Examiner finds that Denning
discloses that the tool includes identification circuitry that provides data
representative of the tool to the accumulator battery via the interface, such as
the maximum discharge current of the tool. Final Act. 2 ( citing Denning
,r 24; Figs. 1---6); Ans. 3--4. The Examiner finds that Denning does not
3
Appeal 2017-011003
Application 12/683,708
disclose the remaining features recited in claim 1, and the Examiner relies on
Bertness and Wiesner for suggesting these features. Final Act. 2--4.
The Examiner finds that Bertness discloses a battery discharge
indicator that provides a warning or alarm signal to a user when the battery
voltage falls below a predetermined threshold for a predetermined interval of
time to protect the battery from over discharge. Ans. 3 ( citing Bertness
Abst.; col. 2, 11. 22--48; col. 4, 11. 47---67; and col. 10, 11. 6-77). The
Examiner finds that Wiesner discloses communication line 22 for
transferring data from power tool 2 to battery pack 4 to improve theft
protection. Ans. 2 ( citing Wiesner ,r,r 7, 8; Fig. 1 ).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants' invention to combine the
disclosures of Denning, Bertness, and Wiesner in order to protect Denning' s
battery from over discharge, and to enhance the security of Denning' s power
tool. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3--4.
Appellants argue that even if Denning were modified in view Bertness
and Wiesner as proposed by the Examiner "all that would be disclosed is
that data about the maximum discharge current of the tool of Denning is
transferred to a battery pack via the communication line of Wiesner," and a
warning/alarm signal of Bertness would be sent from a battery discharge
indicator to an operator of a vehicle. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellants contend that "any hand power tool and accumulator battery of
Denning would still not transmit/receive data to/from each other." Reply Br.
3. Appellants assert that the proposed combination of Denning, Bertness,
and Wiesner, therefore, does not disclose transmitting characterizing data of
a hand power tool by the hand power tool to an accumulator battery via an
4
Appeal 2017-011003
Application 12/683,708
interface, and if a total discharge protection of the accumulator battery
determines that the voltage limit has been fallen short of longer than the
maximum permissible duration, outputting a warning signal by the
accumulator battery to the hand power tool via the interface. App. Br. 6-8;
Reply Br. 2-5.
However, Denning discloses coupling battery pack 102 including one
or more cells 203 to cordless power tool 100 having tool identification
circuitry 230. Figs. 1 and 2; ,r,r 6, 19, 20. Denning discloses that
identification circuitry 230 provides a signal representative of data particular
to cordless power tool 100 to battery pack 102. Figs. 1 and 2; ,r,r 6, 21, 24.
Denning discloses that monitoring and control circuitry 208 in battery pack
102, which includes processor 506 and memory 534, receives the tool
identification signal from cordless power tool 100. ,r,r 7, 21, 24, 38.
Denning explains that during discharging of battery pack 102, monitoring
and control circuitry 208 monitors the voltage levels of battery cells 203, and
compares the measured values to threshold levels to determine if any of the
cell voltage levels is less than an under voltage threshold. ,r,r 22, 39.
Denning discloses that if the measured voltage is below the threshold,
processor 506 in monitoring and control circuitry 208 instructs some
preventative action to be taken, such as providing a control input to circuitry
located outside battery pack 102. ,r,r 22, 39.
Denning does not explicitly disclose that the data particular to the
cordless power tool provided by tool identification circuitry 230 to
monitoring and control circuitry 208 in battery pack 102 includes
characterizing data about a maximum permissible duration for which a
voltage limit of the battery and/ or of individual cells of the battery is fallen
5
Appeal 2017-011003
Application 12/683,708
short of, as recited in claim 1. Nor does Denning explicitly disclose
outputting a warning signal by battery pack 102 to cordless power tool 100 if
a voltage limit has been fallen short of longer than a maximum permissible
duration, as also recited in claim 1.
However, Bertness discloses that preventing destructive deep
discharging of storage batteries, such as those used in electrically propelled
traction vehicles, is conventionally carried out by a battery controller. Col.
1, 11. 10-30. Bertness indicates that such battery controllers, referred to as
"battery discharge indicators," provide some form of warning or visual
indication to allow a user (such as a vehicle operator) to monitor the battery
charge status. Col. 1, 11. 25-3 5. Bertness discloses that providing such a
low charge warning substantially immediately after a battery terminal
voltage drops below a predetermined threshold may result in a false alarm,
however. Col. 1, 11. 35--41.
Bertness discloses preventing such false alarms by providing an alarm
signal as a function of both battery voltage level and time. Col. 2, 11. 32-34.
Specifically, Bertness discloses a vehicle storage battery coupled to a
discharge indicator ( controller) that includes a microprocessor, a voltage
sensor, a memory, and a system clock. Col. 2, 11. 7-19. Bertness discloses
storing a threshold voltage value and a predetermined time interval in the
memory of the discharge indicator. Col. 2, 11. 34--3 7. Bertness discloses
measuring the terminal voltage of the battery using the voltage sensor of the
discharge indicator, and sending the measured voltage to the microprocessor,
which compares the measured value to the threshold value stored in
memory. Col. 2, 11. 37--42. Bertness further discloses using the system
clock of the discharge indicator and the time interval value stored in memory
6
Appeal 2017-011003
Application 12/683,708
to provide an alarm signal to the operator of the vehicle if the voltage falls
below the under voltage threshold for a predetermined interval of time. Col.
2, 11. 22-30; 40-45
In view of these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to
protect the cells of a battery pack, such as the battery pack disclosed in
Denning, from destructive deep discharging as disclosed in Bertness,
reasonably would have modified Denning's system so that the control input
provided by Denning's processor 506 to circuitry located outside battery
pack 102 when the voltage of a cell falls below the under voltage threshold
would cause the power tool to produce an audible or visual alarm to alert the
tool operator of the under voltage situation, as recited in claim 1. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing such an alarm
to the operator of a power tool-like the operator of a vehicle-would allow
the operator to proceed accordingly with use of the tool.
One of ordinary skill in the art also would have modified Denning' s
system to prevent false alarms, as disclosed in Bertness. Specifically, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Denning' s system to include
a system clock as disclosed in Bertness, and would have modified Denning's
tool identification circuitry 230 so that the data provided by tool
identification circuitry 230 to battery monitoring and control circuitry 208 in
Denning's battery pack would include both an under voltage threshold value
and a predetermined time interval ( characterizing data about a maximum
permissible duration for which a voltage limit of the accumulator battery
and/ or of individual cells of the accumulator battery is fallen short of). As
disclosed in Bertness, providing this data to memory 534 of Denning's
monitoring and control circuitry 208 would allow monitoring and control
7
Appeal 2017-011003
Application 12/683,708
circuitry 208 to not only monitor the voltage levels of Denning's battery
cells and compare the measured values to the under voltage threshold value,
but would also allow monitoring and control circuitry 208, in conjunction
with the system clock, to utilize the time interval value stored in memory to
provide an alarm signal only if the measured voltage falls below the under
voltage threshold for a predetermined interval of time. Modifying
Denning' s system in this manner as suggested by Bertness would thus
reduce the occurrence of false alarms by virtue of providing an alarm signal
as a function of both battery voltage level and time, as recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue that there is no disclosure or suggestion in any of the
cited references to exchange Appellants' most-particularly claimed data-a
maximum permissible duration for which a voltage limit of the accumulator
battery and/or individual cells of the battery is fallen short of-between a
hand power tool and an accumulator battery, even if Wiesner discloses
communication between an accumulator battery and a hand power tool.
App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 6-7.
However, as discussed above, Bertness' disclosure of preventing false
low charge warnings when monitoring the voltage of storage batteries to
prevent destructive deep discharging would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Denning' s system so that the data provided by tool
identification circuitry 230 to battery monitoring and control circuitry 208 in
Denning' s battery pack would include both an under voltage threshold value
and a predetermined time interval. As discussed above, providing this data
to memory 534 of Denning's monitoring and control circuitry 208 would
allow monitoring and control circuitry 208 to not only monitor the voltage
levels of the battery cells and compare the measured values to the under
8
Appeal 2017-011003
Application 12/683,708
voltage threshold value, but would also allow monitoring and control
circuitry 208, in conjunction with the system clock, to utilize the time
interval value stored in memory to provide an alarm signal only if the
measured voltage falls below the under voltage threshold for a
predetermined interval of time, thereby reducing the occurrence of false
under voltage alarms.
Therefore, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error,
and we accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, and
6-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9