Ex Parte Gardner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 9, 2007

08896514 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CONRAD OLIVER GARDNER
____________

Appeal No. 2006-3173
Application No. 08/896,514
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before OWENS, BAHR and HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
This is a decision on appellant’s request for rehearing (filed October 31,
2006) under 37 CFR § 41.52(a)(1) of our decision mailed October 20, 2006
affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 55 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lynch in view of known fast charge-discharge batteries
discussed by appellant on page 7 of the present specification (AAPA). In our
decision, we sustained the examiner’s determination that it would have been
obvious to use known fast charge-discharge batteries in Lynch’s hybrid vehicle as
Appeal No. 2006-3173
Application No. 08/896,514

2
storage batteries 14 to achieve the short duration, high current discharge and low
internal resistance objective of Lynch (decision, pp. 6-7).
Appellant appears to argue that this panel overlooked or misapprehended
Lynch’s teaching that “the system can be adjusted so that the batteries are fully
charged at the beginning of a mission and discharged at the end” (col. 9, ll. 45-48).
Request, p. 2. Appellant refers to such adjustment as “load leveling” and urges
that “[s]ubstituting a fast charge-discharge battery would render load leveling
unnecessary.” Request, p. 2.
Appellant’s argument takes the quoted portion of Lynch out of context. In
fact, Lynch teaches, at column 9, ll. 38-49, that:
It will be recognized that the system described is
inherently capable of supplying over a long period of
time just enough energy to [accommodate] the energy
requirements of a particular mission.

Further, the components and their operating points may
be selected to operate such that different missions can be
accommodated and different ratios of electrical to
chemical energies can be used. For example, the system
can be adjusted so that the batteries are fully charged at
the beginning of a mission and discharged at the end.
This would cause the vehicle to use less chemical fuel but
would necessitate a battery charging period.

Moreover, the quoted text from column 9 of Lynch must be read in
conjunction with the teachings in the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 of
Lynch. Specifically, Lynch teaches that
Appeal No. 2006-3173
Application No. 08/896,514

3

as much energy should be supplied to the batteries during
periods of low load as is drawn from the battery in
periods of high load, when averaged over the duration of
a typical mission. Thus, ideally, batteries will not have to
be recharged between missions, nor will fuel be
consumed to produce more electrical energy than can be
stored for latter use.

When read as a whole, it is quite apparent that Lynch contemplates the
batteries will not have to be recharged between missions. Lynch does not present
the system adjustment discussed in column 9 and referred to by appellant as “load
leveling” as the ideal or typical situation but, rather, as an example of an
adjustment that could be made to conserve chemical fuel if battery charging
between missions can be tolerated. Lynch’s teaching that such a fuel conserving
system adjustment is possible would not have dissuaded the skilled artisan from
using fast charge-discharge batteries in the Lynch hybrid vehicle. The motivation
for using fast charge-discharge batteries is discussed on pages 7 and 8 of our
decision.
Appellant’s bald assertions (request, p. 2) that the present invention solves a
long-felt and unsolved need and has resulted in commercial success of present day
hybrids utilizing fast charge-discharge batteries are unsubstantiated.1 Moreover,
the allegation of commercial success was not raised in appellant’s brief and reply

1 Our decision addresses on page 13 the shortcomings of appellant’s allegations of
long-felt and unsolved need.
Appeal No. 2006-3173
Application No. 08/896,514

4
brief and thus is not permitted in a request for rehearing. See 37 CFR §
41.52(a)(1).
Appeal No. 2006-3173
Application No. 08/896,514

5
In light of the above discussion, the arguments in appellant’s request do not
persuade us of any error in our decision. The appellant’s request for rehearing has
been granted to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision but is denied
with respect to making any modification thereto.
DENIED

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LINDA E. HORNER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-3173
Application No. 08/896,514

6
Conrad O. Gardner
Box 1359
Blaine, WA 98231

JDB/lg