Ex Parte SiomaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 17, 201614719278 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/719,278 05/21/2015 Edward M. Sioma Sioma-6 9615 32132 7590 10/19/2016 LAMORTE & ASSOCIATES P.C. P.O. BOX 434 YARDLEY, PA 19067 EXAMINER HENZE-GONGOLA, DAVID V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/19/2016 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): uspatlawl @ verizon.net mail@uspatlaw.com malamorte@verizon.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDWARD M. SIOMA Appeal 2016-008124 Application 14/719,278 Technology Center 2800 Before PETER F. KRATZ, GEORGE C. BEST, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—15 of Application 14/719,278 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (April 14, 2016).1 Appellant2 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. 1 On June 3, 2015, a Petition to Make Special based upon the applicant’s age was granted. Accordingly, we have taken this appeal up out of turn. 2 James Sioma and Lawrence Sioma are identified as the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2016-008124 Application 14/719,278 BACKGROUND The ’278 Application describes a system in method for recharging a rechargeable battery. Spec. 1. In prior art systems, a preselected charging voltage and current are fed into the rechargeable battery. Id. at 3. The battery charger’s output is monitored using a voltage comparator. Id. The voltage comparator compares the output voltage of the battery charger to a preselected voltage set point. Id. When the battery’s output voltage reaches the set point, the battery is deemed fully charged. Id. According to Appellant, this methodology assumes that the output voltage received at the voltage comparator is exactly equal to the voltage output produced by the rechargeable battery and ignores a number of variables. Id. These variables include the resistance of the wires that lead to and from the battery, the battery’s internal resistance, and any corrosion that may have occurred at the connection between the wires in the battery. Id. at 3^4. According to Appellant, this leads the voltage comparator to turn off the charging current before the battery is fully charged. Id. at 4. Appellant’s methodology is said to dynamically monitor the voltage drops produced by the variables discussed above. Id. at 5. Appellant’s system adjusts the charging system based upon this dynamic monitoring to ensure that the rechargeable battery can be fully charged without incurring the danger of overcharging the battery. Id. Claim 1 is representative of the ’278 Application’s claims and is reproduced below: 1. A recharging system, comprising: a source of a DC charging current; a rechargeable battery that supplies a true battery voltage, said rechargeable battery having an internal resistance; 2 Appeal 2016-008124 Application 14/719,278 a first circuit point that receives said DC charging current; an incoming lead that extends from said first circuit point to said rechargeable battery; a second circuit point; a ground lead that extends from said rechargeable battery to said second circuit point, wherein said incoming lead and said ground lead have lead resistances, wherein said internal resistance and said lead resistances produce an error voltage when said DC charging current flows through said rechargeable battery and said leads, wherein said error voltage combines with said true battery voltage to produce an inflated voltage at said second circuit point; a filtering circuit that receives both a first voltage input from said first circuit point and a second voltage input from said second circuit point, wherein said filtering circuit quantifies said error voltage utilizing said first voltage input and said second voltage input; a subtractor[3] circuit that receives said inflated voltage and said error voltage after being quantified, wherein said subtractor circuit subtracts said error voltage from said inflated voltage to quantify said true battery voltage; a voltage comparator that compares said true battery voltage, after being quantified, to a voltage set point; and 3 We note that Appellant’s Figures label subtractor circuit 30 as “SUBSTRACTOR CIRCUIT.” If prosecution of the ’278 Application continues, Appellant should consider correcting these errors. 3 Appeal 2016-008124 Application 14/719,278 a switch, disposed between said source of a DC charging current and said first circuit point, that is controlled by said voltage comparator, wherein said switch receives said DC charging current and directs said DC charging current to said rechargeable battery should said voltage set point be greater than said true battery voltage. Appeal Br. 25—26 (Claims App.) (emphasis, some paragraphing, and indentation added). REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom4 and St-Jacques.5 Final Act. 2. 2. Claims 8—10 and 13—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom and Arnold.6 Final Act. 8. 3. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom, Arnold, and St- Jacques. Final Act. 12. DISCUSSION Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1—7 as unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom and St-Jacques. Final Act. 2. Appellant 4 US 5,808,443, issued September 15, 1998. 5 US 2009/0278489 Al, published November 12, 2009. 6 US 2005/0194933 Al, published September 8, 2005. 4 Appeal 2016-008124 Application 14/719,278 argues for reversal of this rejection based upon the limitations set forth in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6—14. Thus, we shall limit our discussion to claim 1. Dependent claims 2—7 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Lundstrom describes or suggests every limitation in claim 1, including a device that is disposed between the source of the charging current and the first circuit point and is controlled by the voltage comparator. Final Act. 5. The Examiner, however, found that Lundstrom does not explicitly disclose that this device is a switch which receives DC current. Id. at 6. The Examiner further found that St-Jacques describes a circuit in which the device is a switch which receives DC current. Id. (citing St-Jacques Figure 4). Based upon these findings, the Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Lundstrom to further include the device is a switch which receives DC current for the purpose of enabling a pulsed charging of the battery which minimizes sulfation deterioration, as taught by St-Jacques (paragraph 12).” Id. Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. See Appeal Br. 8—14. Inter alia, Appellant argues that Lundstrom and St- Jacques—whether considered individually or in combination—do not describe or suggest a filtering circuit that quantifies the error voltage using the voltage data derived from the first and second voltage inputs. Id. at 12— 13. We begin, as we must, by considering the relevant claim language. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 5 Appeal 2016-008124 Application 14/719,278 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Only when a claim is properly understood can a determination be made . . . whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the claimed invention.”). The relevant portion of claim 1 reads: a filtering circuit that receives both a first voltage input from said first circuit point and a second voltage input from said second circuit point, wherein said filtering circuit quantifies said error voltage utilizing said first voltage input and said second voltage input; Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis, paragraphing, and indentation added). The Examiner found that Lundstrom describes a filtering circuit that receives both a first voltage input from said first circuit point and a second voltage input from said second circuit point, wherein said filtering circuit quantifies said error voltage utilizing said first voltage input and said second voltage input [figure 1, amplifier 34, low pass filter 38a, ADC 40a, microcontroller 30a; figure 3, steps 122 and 124, the error voltage is quantified by determining the total series resistance— the combined resistance “R” of the lead resistances and internal resistance-in step 122 using the first voltage input and second voltage input (each of the voltage measurements V1 and V2 of voltage “V” of figure 1 inherently require inputs from the two circuit points) and then multiplying this resistance times the charging current {the “R*I_ave” term in the equation of step 124 is the error voltage), thus error voltage is “quantified” utilizing said first voltage input and said second voltage input; col. 5, lines 20-31, amplifier 34 receives voltage “V” across the capacitor 14]; .... Final Act. 4—5 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s factual finding is incorrect because Lundstrom’s filtering circuit does not determine the error voltage before passing data onto the subtractor circuit. Appeal Br. 9-11. 6 Appeal 2016-008124 Application 14/719,278 We agree with Appellant on this point. In Appellant’s embodiments, high pass filter 26 removes the DC component—i.e., VBattery—from the data it receives from the first and second voltage inputs and passes the remaining signal—i.e.,VError—to the subtractor circuit. Spec. 10-11; Fig. 1. In contrast, Lundstrom uses low pass filter 38a to smooth the measured total voltage— i.e., Vinflated in the terms used by the ’278 Application’s Specification—and passes that information along with information concerning instantaneous measurements of voltage and current to microprocessor 30a. Lundstrom Figure 1; col. 5,1. 67—col. 6,1. 17. Assuming arguendo that the Examiner is correct in finding that a portion of microprocessor 30a is part of the claimed filtering circuit and a (presumably different) portion of microprocessor 30a comprises the subtractor circuit, Lundstrom’s discussion makes it clear that the term R*I_ave—which corresponds to VError, see Final Act. 5—is only transiently calculated during microprocessor 30a ’s calculation of Visauery using the equation — Kive — Oave * ^)- Lundstrom col. 5,1. 50-col. 6,1. 41. In other words, the transient determination of VEn-or occurs in the portion of microprocessor that corresponds to the claimed subtractor circuit, not the filtration circuit. The Examiner’s erroneous factual determination requires reversal of the obviousness rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of claims 2—7. Because we reverse the rejection of claims 1—7 due to this error, we need not and do not express any opinion regarding Appellant’s other arguments for reversal of the rejection of claim 1. Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 8—10 and 13—15 as unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom and Arnold. Final Act. 8— 12. Appellant presents separate arguments for reversal of the rejection of 7 Appeal 2016-008124 Application 14/719,278 independent claims 8 and 15. See Appeal Br. 14—22. Dependent claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 are alleged to be patentable based upon their dependence from independent claim 8. Id. at 19. Accordingly, we shall confine our discussion to independent claims 8 and 15. The dependent claims subject to this rejection will stand or fall with independent claim 8. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 8. In relevant part, claim 8 reads “a filtering circuit that. . . quantifies said error voltage.” Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that Lundstrom describes such a circuit. Final Act. 9 (citing Lundstrom Fig. 1; col. 5,1. 50-col. 6,1. 18). For the reasons discussed above, we have determined that this finding is erroneous. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 8. Claim 15. In relevant part, claim 15 reads “providing a filtering circuit that. . . quantifies said error voltage.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that Lundstrom describes such a circuit. Final Act. 9 (citing Lundstrom Fig. 1; col. 5,1. 50-col. 6,1. 18). For the reasons discussed above, we have determined that this finding is erroneous. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 15. As discussed above, the Examiner’s erroneous factual determination requires reversal of the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 15. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of claims 9, 10, 13, and 14. Because we reverse the rejection of claims 8—10 and 13—15 due to this error, we need not and do not express any opinion regarding Appellant’s other arguments for reversal of the rejection of claims 8 and 15. Rejection 3. Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over the combination of Lundstrom, Arnold, and St-Jacques by virtue of their dependence from independent claim 8. Appeal Br. 22—23. 8 Appeal 2016-008124 Application 14/719,278 Because we have reversed the rejection of claim 8, we also reverse the rejection of claims 11 and 12. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1— 15 of the ’278 Application. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation