Steven Diamond et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 22, 2019

13434707 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2019)

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.
13/434,707 03/29/2012 Steven Diamond A68348 1160US.1 3326
26158 7590 11/22/2019
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
KEBEDE, TESSEMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2019 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):
BostonPatents@wbd-us.com
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN DIAMOND, GABRIEL RISK, STANLEY HU,
ALBERT SHIH-YOUNG LIU, and MARTIN HELLIWELL

Appeal 2018-009096
Application 13/434,707
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Atieva, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-009096
Application 13/434,707

2
The following rejections are presented for appeal:
I. Claims 1, 3–6, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Emori (US 2009/0085516 A1), in view of
Toya, (US 6,304,061 B1) and in further view of Ishikawa (US 7,508,166
B2).
II. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Emori, Toya, Ishikawa, and Harvey (US 5,760,587).
III. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Emori, Toya, Ishikawa, and Berkowitz (US 2012/0001594 A1).
IV. Claims 7–9 and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Emori, Toya, Ishikawa, and Gilman (US 8,670,885 B2).
IV. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Emori, Toya, Ishikawa, and Sakai (US 6,608,482 B2)
VI. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Emori, Toya, Ishikawa, and Ito (US 5,825,155).

Appellant’s invention relates to battery pack management systems that
performs estimates of battery pack state of charge (SOC) based on
measurements of voltages of constituent battery blocks obtained during
battery pack charging and/or discharging operations. (Spec. ¶ 19.)
Independent claims 1, 11, 12, and 20 are presented in the appeal and
representative claim 1 is reproduced from the appendix to the Appeal Brief
below:
1. A method of operation within a battery system having a
plurality of battery blocks coupled in series between terminals
of a battery pack, the method comprising:
Appeal 2018-009096
Application 13/434,707

3
measuring respective charging and discharging voltages
of the battery blocks while charging and discharging the battery
blocks;
determining a state-of-charge of the battery pack based,
at least in part, on the charging and discharging voltages of the
battery blocks;
detecting an anomalous battery block exhibiting outlier
upper and lower peak voltages with both upper peak voltage,
during charging, and lower peak voltage, during discharging,
exceeding statistical thresholds;
adjusting a state-of-charge of one or more of the battery
blocks downward, responsive to determining that an upper peak
battery block voltage of each of the one or more of the battery
blocks during the charging reaches a predetermined proximity
to a high operating limit that prevents damage during the
charging, wherein the adjusting downward comprises
discharging the one or more of the battery blocks into one or
more other battery blocks;
adjusting a state-of-charge of a further one or more of the
battery blocks upward, responsive to determining that a lower
peak battery block voltage of each of the further one or more
battery blocks during the discharging reaches a further
predetermined proximity to a low operating limit that prevents
damage during the discharging; and
adjusting a state-of-charge of the anomalous battery
block to center the outlier upper peak voltage and the outlier
lower peak voltage, relative to the high operating limit and the
low operating limit.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejections based on the arguments presented by Appellant. We add the
following.
We limit our discussion to the independent claims 1, 11, 12, and 20.
Appeal 2018-009096
Application 13/434,707

4
The Examiner finds Emori teaches a battery management system that
detects an anomalous battery block exhibiting outlier upper and lower peak
voltages with both upper peak voltage, during charging, and lower peak
voltage, during discharging, exceeding statistical thresholds as required by
independent claim 1. (Final Act. 4; Emori ¶ 59.) The Examiner finds Fig.
14, step 807 describes repeatedly measuring voltages at individual cells.
(Advisory Act. 2; Emori ¶ 194, Fig 23).
The Examiner finds Emori does not teach adjusting downward
comprises discharging the one or more of the battery blocks into one or more
other battery blocks as required by claim 1.2 (Final Act. 5). The Examiner
finds Ishikawa teaches these limitations particularly Fig. 1 exhibiting charge
condition adjusting apparatus of high voltage battery and Fig. 2 discharging
circuits 31–35. (Final Act. 5).
The Examiner also finds Emori does not teach adjusting a state-of-
charge of the anomalous battery block to center the outlier upper peak
voltage and the outlier lower peak voltage, relative to the high operating
limit and the low operating limit as required by claim 1. (Final Act. 6). The
Examiner finds Toya teaches these limitations. (Final Act. 6; Toya Cols. 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7).

The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to modify an automotive power supply system with a battery module
that measure individual voltage cells to implement abnormality
diagnosis to adjust SOC (state of charge) of the battery cells teaching
of Emori and incorporate charge condition adjusting apparatus for

2 Similar limitations appear in independent claims 11, 12, and 20.
Appeal 2018-009096
Application 13/434,707

5
quicker charge equalization among battery blocks using discharging
circuits for faster and less complex process teaching of Ishikawa and
further include controlling battery charging and discharging method to
prevent over-charging and over-discharging of the battery array
teaching of Toya to enable longer battery life and operation (Emori,
Abstract, Fig 1, 14, 22, [0064]; Ishikawa, Abstract, Fig 1, 2, Col 3, Ln
25-49, Col 5, Ln 43-59; Toya, Abstract, Fig 3-7, Col 3, Ln 16-38).
(Final Act. 7).

During examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also,
Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d
984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he analysis that ‘should be made explicit’
refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to
the court’s analysis.”).

The first issue on appeal is:
Did the Examiner err in determining that Emori teaches a battery
management system that: adjusts the state of charge of the one or more
battery blocks downward based on the upper peak battery block voltage of
each of the one or more battery blocks determined during charging; and
adjusts the state of charge of the one or more battery blocks upward based
Appeal 2018-009096
Application 13/434,707

6
on the lower peak battery block voltage of each of the one or more battery
blocks determined during discharging as required by independent claims 1
or a method of operation within a battery system that comprises measuring
the respective charging and discharging voltages of the battery blocks while
charging and discharging the battery blocks as required by independent
claims 11?
We answer this question in the affirmative.

Appellant argues Emori’s diagnostics procedure (paragraph 59), that
includes measuring the terminal voltage at a given battery cell, is performed
prior to connection of the batteries to the inverter, and does not include
measurements made during charging and during discharging of the battery
as required by independent claims 1 and 11. (Appeal Br. 8–10.)
Emori discloses the introduction of an electrical load, such as by an
inverter, results in noise that affects the detection of the voltage accuracy.
Emori specifically states:
[T]he terminal voltage at each battery cell is cyclically detected and
the average of a plurality of measurement values obtained by
measuring the terminal voltage a plurality of times is used as a
measurement value. When the electrical load is an inverter, there is
bound to be significant noise. Under such circumstances, the detection
accuracy can be greatly improved by using the average of a plurality
of digitized values.
(Emori ¶ 54.)

Consequently, we agree with Appellant that Emori’s disclosure in
paragraph 59 that the 4.2V terminal voltage represents an overcharge state
and not a measurement made during charging and the 2.5V terminal voltage
Appeal 2018-009096
Application 13/434,707

7
represents an over-discharge state and not a measurement made during
discharging. (Appeal Br. 10; Emori ¶ 59.)

Emori discloses the introduction of an electrical load, such as by an
inverter, results in noise that affects the detection of the voltage accuracy.
Emori specifically states:
The voltages at the battery cells are measured before the relays RLP,
RLN and RLPRE are turned on, i.e., before the inverter 220 and the
battery unit 9 become electrically connected with each other. In other
words, the voltages at the battery cells are measured before starting
the power supply to the inverter 220 and thus, accurate detection of
the states of charge SOCs is enabled based upon the terminal voltages
at the battery cells measured prior to the current supply.
(Emori ¶ 198.)

Thus, we also agree with Appellant that the measurement of terminal
voltages at the battery cells in step 807, Fig. 14, and paragraph 194 describes
measuring voltages while the battery cells are disconnected from the inverter
and not being charged through the inverter nor being discharged through the
inverter. (Appeal Br. 10–11.)

The second issue on appeal is:
Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Emori
and Ishikawa teach a battery management system that adjusts the state-of-
charge of the battery blocks comprising discharging the one or more of the
battery blocks into one or more other battery blocks as required by claims 1,
11, 12, and 20?
We answer this question in the affirmative.
Appeal 2018-009096
Application 13/434,707

8

The Examiner relies on Ishikawa’s discharging circuits 31–35 as
describing adjusting a state-of-charge of the battery blocks comprises
discharging the one or more of the battery blocks into one or more other
battery blocks. (Final Act. 5; Ishikawa col. 5.)
Appellant argues the Examiner’s interpretation of Ishikawa is not
consistent with the disclosure of the reference. (Appeal Br. 12.)
Ishikawa specifically discloses connecting unit cell Cm to the cell-
discharging resistor Rdc for discharging the unit cell Cm through the cell-
discharging resistor Rdc, but does not discharge the unit cell Cm into one or
more other battery blocks. (Ishikawa col. 5, ll. 44–59.) As such, we agree
with Appellant that the teachings of Ishikawa cited by the Examiner does not
support the interpretation of the discharge circuits 31–35 as describing
discharging one or more of the battery blocks into one or more other battery
blocks as required by the claimed invention.

For the foregoing reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1, 11, 12, and 20 for the reasons presented by
Appellant and given above. We likewise reverse the Examiner’s decision to
reject dependent claims 2–10 and 13–19 since these rejections are premised
on the Examiner’s unsupported combination of Emori and Ishikawa. We
need not reach whether the Examiner’s reliance on other references in
addition to Emori and Ishikawa for the rejection of the dependent claims was
supported by the evidence of record because the base combination of Emori
and Ishikawa cannot stand.
Appeal 2018-009096
Application 13/434,707

9

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 11,
12, 15, and
16
103(a) Emori, Toya, and
Ishikawa
1, 3–6, 11,
12, 15, 16
13 and 14 103(a) Emori, Toya,
Ishikawa, and
Harvey
13,14
2 103(a) Emori, Toya,
Ishikawa, and
Berkowitz
2
7–9 and 17–
19
103(a) Emori, Toya,
Ishikawa, and
Gilman

7–9, 17–
19
10 103(a) Emori, Toya,
Ishikawa and Sakai
10
20 103(a) Emori, Toya,
Ishikawa, and Ito
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED