Ex Parte Grider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2018

12329707 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/329,707 12/08/2008
28395 7590 11/08/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Duane M. Grider
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.
81175960 9412
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DUANE M. GRIDER and BALA S. CHANDER
Appeal2018-000557
Application 12/329,707
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1, 4--7, 9, and 11-20. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 "The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC." (Appeal
Br. 1.)
Appeal2018-000557
Application 12/329,707
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates to a system and method for
controlling heating of "a battery in a hybrid vehicle using a source of power
external to the hybrid vehicle." (Spec., 1, 11. 16-19.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A system for controlling heating of a battery in a
hybrid vehicle using a power source external to the vehicle, the
system comprising:
a battery heater, located in the vehicle and electrically
coupled to an electrical port; and
a system controller in the vehicle configured to generate
a heater control signal based on battery-life information and to
distribute electric power from the power source to the battery
heater.
Muramatsu
Reed
Ozawa
Ng
Zhu
References
us 4,678,998
us 5,012,070
us 5,757,595
US 6,320,351 Bl
US 2006/0016793 Al
Rejections
July 7, 1987
Apr. 30, 1991
May 26, 1998
Nov. 20, 2001
Jan.26,2006
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Muramatsu, and Ng. (Final
Action 2.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Muramatsu, Ng, and Ozawa. (Final
Action 3.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Muramatsu, Ng, Ozawa, and Zhu.
(Final Action 4.)
2
Appeal2018-000557
Application 12/329,707
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 1 7, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal, with the
rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 4--7, 9, 11-16, and 20) depending
therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claims 1 and 17 recite a system for, and independent
claim 19 recites a method of, "controlling heating of a battery in a hybrid
electric vehicle using a power source external to the vehicle." (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner concludes that the claimed systems and method
would have been obvious over the prior art. (See Final Action 2-5.) The
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reasoning "does not support a
conclusion of obviousness" (Appeal Br. 7); and, as discussed below, we are
persuaded by the Appellants' position.
The Examiner's obviousness rejections all rely upon Reed to show a
system/method for controlling heating of a vehicle battery using a power
source external to the vehicle. (See Final Action 2--4.) Reed discloses "a
vehicle preheating system" that is "capable of using standard household
electrical current" to heat, among other things, "a warming device for the
battery." (Reed, col. 3, 11. 53-55; col. 6, 11. 65-66.)2 In Reed's vehicle
preheating system, a "timer control 12" is "programmed to activate"
preheating functions ( e.g., the battery warmer), at the appropriate time. (Id.
at co 1. 7, 11. 13-15.)
Independent claim 1 requires the system to include a "controller" that
is "configured to generate a heater control signal based on battery-life
information and to distribute electric power from the power source to the
2 Quotations from Reed will omit the bolding of drawing-associated
numerals.
3
Appeal2018-000557
Application 12/329,707
battery heater." (Appeal Br., Claims App., emphasis added.) Independent
claim 17 likewise recites a "controller" that is "configured to receive a
command signal and a feedback signal including battery-life information."
(Id., emphasis added.) Independent claim 19 requires the step of "receiving
a command signal and a feedback signal that includes battery-life
information." (Id., emphasis added.)
The Examiner acknowledges that, although Reed's system may
include a timer control 12 which generates a heater control signal, this
controller does not "generate a heater control signal based on battery-life
information." (Final Action 2, emphasis added.) But the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious, "[i]n view of Muramatsu and
Ng," to adapt Reed's controller so that it "monitors the conditions of the
battery including a feedback signal regarding the battery conditions
including its battery life." (Id. at 3.) The Examiner's articulated reason for
this adaption is that it would "prevent overdrawing of the power from the
battery source and prolong the service life of the battery." (Id.)
The Appellants argue that the Examiner's reasoning "lacks the
rational underpinnings to support an obviousness rejection." (Appeal Br. 7.)
Specifically, according to the Appellants, "overdrawing of power from [a]
vehicle battery" cannot "rationally be considered a problem" when "battery
heating is accomplished using a power source external to the vehicle." (Id.)
We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner does not address
adequately why overdrawing of power from the vehicle battery would be a
concern with Reed's vehicle preheating system. Reed discloses that battery
preheating is accomplished using "external power rather than vehicle battery
power" (Reed, Abstract) and is done "without drawing power from the
4
Appeal2018-000557
Application 12/329,707
storage battery of the vehicle" (id. at col. 3, 11. 45--46). As such, the
Examiner does not explain satisfactorily why one of ordinary skill in the art
would consider a battery's life, and thus information relating thereto,
significant to the workings of Reed's preheating system.
The Examiner seems to imply that, in Reed, the external power source
supplies power to not just the "battery heater," but also the "battery" itself.
(See Final Action 2; see also Answer 6.) Yet the Examiner does not point,
with particularity, to where Reed teaches that its preheating system also
charges the vehicle battery via the external power source. In Reed, a
terminal block 24 "provide[s] an engine heating element outlet 28, battery
warmer outlet 30, water line preheater outlet 32, and an auxiliary outlet 34 to
supply electrical power to a plurality of heating devices" (Reed, col. 5,
11. 12-17, see also Fig. 2), but there is no outlet associated with charging the
battery.
The Examiner does cite to a sentence in Reed that supposedly shows
that it is "concerned for a deep discharging of the batter[y] that shortens its
battery life." (Answer 7 .) But the cited sentence simply says that
[t]ypically, the vehicle battery is more deeply discharged during cold
weather starting, which tends to shorten the life of such a battery even if the
vehicle charging system is operating optimally." (Reed, col. 1, 11. 42--46.)
This amounts to a teaching that a battery warmer (powered by an external
power source) is an asset during winter months, regardless of the battery's
life or information relating thereto.
The Examiner also maintains that "[i]t is known in the art that a
vehicle battery would power its own electrical loads, which would include a
battery heater." (Answer 6.) Be this as it may, Reed teaches the opposite
5
Appeal2018-000557
Application 12/329,707
approach, as "household electric current" is used to power "a warming
device for the battery," regardless of battery-life circumstances. (Reed,
col. 3, 11. 53-54, col. 6, 11. 65---66.) Thus, with Reed's preheating system,
there would be no occasion for battery power "to be disconnected as taught
by Muramatsu and Ng" (Answer 6) when warming the vehicle battery for a
cold start or otherwise.
The Appellants, therefore, argue persuasively that the Examiner does
not establish that it would have been obvious to adapt Reed's controller to
provide a heater control signal that is based on battery-life information. As
for the additional prior art references (i.e., Ng, Ozawa, Zhu); they do not
remedy the above-listed deficiency in the Examiner's proposed combination
of Reed, Muramatsu, and Ng. (See Final Action 3--4.) The Examiner's
further findings and determinations with respect to the dependent claims also
do not compensate for this shortcoming. (See id. 3-5.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9,
11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Muramatsu,
and Ng (Rejection I); we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4,
5, and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed,
Muramatsu, Ng, and Ozawa (Rejection II); and we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reed, Muramatsu, Ng, Ozawa, and Zhu (Rejection III).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4--7, 9, and 11-20.
REVERSED
6