Ex Parte Fendt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2018

13807934 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/807,934 03/08/2013
24131 7590 12/12/2018
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
PO BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guenter Anton Fendt
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.
2010P00709 3442
EXAMINER
PIGGUSH, AARON C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2018 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUNTER ANTON FENDT
and MANFRED KULESCH
Appeal2017-011618
Application 13/807,934
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant (Conti Temic Microelectronic GMBH) appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-26, 32,
and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The claims are to an apparatus and method for classifying an electrical
contact connection. Claim 16 is illustrative:
16. An apparatus for classifying an electrical contact
connection between a voltage terminal of a battery and a
connection element directly or indirectly connected to an
electrical load, the apparatus comprising:
Appeal2017-011618
Application 13/807,934
a temperature sensor disposed for sensing a temperature
of one or both of the voltage terminal or of the connection
element; and
a control device coupled to said temperature sensor and
configured to take a sensed signal from the temperature sensor
as a basis for determining a contact resistance of the electrical
contact connection between the voltage terminal and the
connection element.
Kojima
Nor
Furukawa
The References
us 5,291,118
us 5,670,861
US 2007/0018780 Al
The Rejections
Mar. 1, 1994
Sept. 23, 1997
Jan.25,2007
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
claims 16, 18-21, 24--26, and 32 over Kojima in view of Nor, and claims 17,
22, 23, and 33 over Kojima in view of Nor and Furukawa.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims, i.e., claims 16 and 32. 1
Kojima determines whether a battery ( 1) is connected to a battery
charger ( 4) by comparing the voltage at a reference voltage source (8) in the
battery charger (4) to a voltage at a terminal (3-3) at which the battery (1)
can be connected via a thermistor (2) to a temperature detection line (13) in
the battery charger (4) (col. 3, 1. 42--48; Fig. 1). If a battery charger (4)'s
microcomputer (9), to which the reference voltage source (8) and the
1 The Examiner does not rely upon Furukawa for any disclosure that
remedies the deficiency in Kojima and Nor as to the independent claims
(Final Act. 5-8).
2
Appeal2017-011618
Application 13/807,934
terminal (3-3) are connected, detects a degree of voltage drop from the
reference voltage source (8) to the terminal (3-3) which, at a temperature
measured using the thermistor (2) and the temperature detection line (13), is
expected when the battery (1) is connected to the battery charger ( 4 ), the
microcomputer (9) indicates that the battery (1) and the battery charger ( 4)
are connected, whereas absent that degree of voltage drop, the
microcomputer (9) indicates that the battery (1) is disconnected from the
battery charger (4) (col. 3, 11. 49-58; col. 4, 11. 8-24, 32--44; Fig. 1).
Nor avoids safety hazards in a long chain battery (14)'s high current
environment by detecting high or increasing contact resistance within the
long chain battery (14)'s wiring (38) by use of nodal sensing wires (28)
connecting the battery (14)'s power cable clamps (66) to a battery
monitoring module (18) (col. 2, 11. 16-18; col. 10, 11. 38--43; Fig. 1).
The Examiner finds that Nor measures battery temperature ("sensors
which monitor and detect cell or battery temperature" (col. 5, 11. 14--15);
"application of a mathematical model, which applies corrections for the
battery temperature and current, and assumes predetermined values of
charge efficiency, so that controlled charge and discharge are not damaging
to the battery" (col. 18, 11. 36-40); "calculating the amount of self-discharge
of the battery in the standby mode ( when the vehicle is not in use), from the
self-discharge rate of the given battery, with or without temperature
correction" (col. 18, 11. 50-53)) (Ans. 4). The Examiner concludes that "it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include
determining a contact resistance in the device of Kojima, as did Nor, so that
the system could determine if there is a problem with the connection that
could cause inefficiency or damage" (Final Act. 3).
3
Appeal2017-011618
Application 13/807,934
Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
The Examiner does not establish that Nor's measurement of contact
resistance to avoid safety hazards in a long chain battery and detection of the
battery's temperature for other purposes, and Kojima's use of temperature
when measuring voltage drop to determine whether a battery is connected to
a battery charger, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with
an apparent reason to use sensed temperature as a basis for determining
contact resistance.
Thus, the record indicates that the Examiner's rejections are based
upon impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellant's disclosure. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art"). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 16, 18-21, 24--26,
and 32 over Kojima in view of Nor, and claims 17, 22, 23, and 33 over
Kojima in view of Nor and Furukawa are reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4