Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 3, 2019

14513400 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/513,400 10/14/2014 Xiaoguang Chang
28866 7590 06/05/2019
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
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.
83448068 9647
EXAMINER
KEBEDE, TESSEMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2019 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):
MST@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOGUANG CHANG, CHU AN HE, XU WANG, and
JOSEPHINE S. LEE
Appeal 2018-004167
Application 14/513,400
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 as unpatentable over the
combined prior art of Paryani et al. (US 2010/0138178 Al, published Jun. 3,
2010) in view of Hall et al. (US 6,388,447 Bl, issued May 14, 2002). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellant is the applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which is also
identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal 2018-004167
Application 14/513,400
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal ( emphasis added
to highlight key disputed limitations):
1. A method of monitoring a battery cell using open circuit
voltage (OCV), comprising:
charging the battery cell;
detecting a charging condition in response to a predetermined
charging current;
measuring OCV during battery cell usage following charging;
and
converting measured OCV values to battery cell SOC [ state of
charge] values using a selected stored SOC-OCV aging curve having
an SOC-OCV slope vector best fitting a charging slope vector, wherein
the selected SOC-OCV aging curve is selected from a plurality of
stored SOC-OCV aging curves based on a) a charging slope vector
compiled during the charging condition comprising a plurality of slope
values over respective state-of-charge (SOC) increments, and b) a
plurality of SOC-OCV slope vectors corresponding to the plurality of
stored SOC-OCV aging curves, each SOC-OCV slope vector
comprising a plurality of slope values over equivalent state-of-charge
increments, wherein the plurality of stored SOC-OCV aging curves are
derived from advanced testing.
Appellant focuses their arguments on limitations regarding the State-
Of-Charge (SOC), Open-Circuit-Voltage (OCV), and SOC-OCV slope
which are common to independent claims 1, 8, and 16 (Appeal Br. 5---6).
2
Appeal 2018-004167
Application 14/513,400
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal and each of
Appellant's contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief filed October 26,
2017, as well as the Reply Brief filed March 12, 2018, we determine that
Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner's rejection
(e.g. Ans. 3--4 (mailed Feb. 12, 2018)). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365-66
(Fed. Cir. 2011) ( explaining the Board's long-held practice of requiring
Appellants to identify the alleged error in the Examiner's rejection.).
We, therefore, find that the preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. We sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejections for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
It has been established that "the [obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264--
65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the specific teachings
thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably been expected to draw therefrom).
With respect to rejection of Claim 1, Appellant argues that the prior
art combination of Paryani and Hall does not teach "a plurality of SOC-OCV
aging curves" and a "plurality of SOC-OCV slope vectors" (Appeal Br. 4;
Reply Br. 2). Appellant further asserts that the replied upon "look up table"
may not contain more than one SOC-OCV relationship (Appeal Br. 4).
3
Appeal 2018-004167
Application 14/513,400
Appellant also asserts that the combination does not teach that the charging
slope vector was "compiled during the charging condition" (Id.). These
arguments are not persuasive to show reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection.
The Examiner points out that Paryani teaches a control loop that
records the pertinent data over time to determine SOC from the OCV, and
also uses a look up table that provides SOC as a function of voltage (Ans. 3).
As the Examiner found, one of ordinary skill would have readily appreciated
that a look up table may contain multiple entries. In any event, the
Examiner further relied upon Hall to teach that multiple curves (i.e., aging
curves) (Final Act. 6) can be stored in a look up table and that the data
would also consist of multiple slopes (i.e., slope vectors) for SOC-OCV
(Ans. 4). One of ordinary skill would have readily inferred using no more
than ordinary creativity that the prior art combination look up table and
stored SOC-OCV data would have been encompassed by Appellant's claim
language. KSR Int 'l Co., 550 U.S. at 417 (2007) (the predictable use of
known prior art elements performing the same functions they have been
known to perform is normally obvious; the combination of familiar elements
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results);
Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d
984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (under the flexible inquiry set forth by the
Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the "inferences and creative
steps," as well as routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ).
Finally, Appellant argues that Examiner erred because the prior art
combination does not teach that the charging slope vector was "compiled
during the charging condition" (Appeal Br. 4). The Examiner relied upon
4
Appeal 2018-004167
Application 14/513,400
Paryani to teach "the next process steps, values for Delta function" (Final
Act. 4, relying upon Paryani ,r 17; Ans. 3). Paryani paragraph 17 teaches
that calculations can be done at any time as long as the system enters a "rest
period. "2 Thus, the skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred that the
necessary calculations and data collection are done at any time during the
resting period which includes during recharging. In re Fritch, 972 F .2d
1260, 1264---65 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellant has not offered adequate
evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to identify reversible error in the
Examiner's position.
Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that "amp hours
used" refers to the data being taken during power delivery (i.e. the battery in
use) (Reply Br. 1). Appellant has not shown good cause why these
arguments could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, we
need not consider the arguments newly raised in the Reply Brief. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
Nonetheless, Appellant has not directed our attention to any evidence
or persuasive technical reason to support Appellant's assertion. We,
therefore, do not find the newly presented argument to be persuasive.
Appellant has not provided any further evidence or persuasive
technical reasoning to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in determining
that the claimed method would encompass the prior art combination/method.
In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (it
2 "It should be further noted that although these calculations can be
performed at any time as long as the system has entered into a rest period,
preferably a preset minimum amount of time has passed between the 'past'
and 'current' SOC readings." (Paryani, ,r 17; emphasis added).
5
Appeal 2018-004167
Application 14/513,400
is well established that "the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification" and if the Specification does
not provide a definition for claim terms, the PTO applies a broad
interpretation).
Consequently, after consideration of Appellant's arguments, we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's determination of obviousness. Thus,
a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's position with
respect to claims 1, 8 and 16 ( Ans. generally).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of all the claims on appeal for the reasons given above and
presented by the Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner's§ 103 rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
6