Yang, Xiao Guang. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 15, 2020

14336741 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2020)

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.
14/336,741 07/21/2014 Xiao Guang Yang 83407579 8533
28395 7590 06/15/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
TRISCHLER, JOHN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2020 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 XIAO GUANG YANG and THEODORE JAMES MILLER1
____________

Appeal 2019-000850
Application 14/336,741
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of charging a battery.
E.g., Spec. ¶ 1; Claim 9. Claim 9 is reproduced below from page 10 (Claims
Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000850
Application 14/336,741

2
9. A method of charging a battery cell comprising:
charging, by a controller, the battery cell at a current based on a
constant charge power level such that the battery cell acquires
charge at a predetermined rate and a battery voltage continually
increases during charging without a constant voltage phase; and
terminating the charging when the battery voltage exceeds a
recommended maximum voltage by a variable amount defined
by the current and a battery resistance.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. Claims 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 over Andrieu (US 5,604,418,
issued Feb. 18, 1997), Zhong (US 2012/0177959 A1, published July 12,
2012), and Lee (US 5,986,437, issued Nov. 16, 1999) as evidence by Battery
University (Charging Lithium-ion, Battery University (June 25, 2014),
web.archive.org/web/20140625074339/http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/art
icle/charging_lithium_ion_batteries (last accessed June 5, 2020)), Schweiger
(Hans-Georg Schweiger et al., Comparison of Several Methods for
Determining the Internal Resistance of Lithium Ion Cells, 10 Sensors 5604
(June 3, 2010)), and ThomasNet (Types of Uninterruptible Power Supply
(UPS) Systems, ThomasNet, http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/electrical-
power-generation/ups-system-types (last accessed June 5, 2020)). Final Act.
3–4.
2. Claim 10 over Andrieu, Zhong, Lee, and Schaefer
(US 2012/0169297 A1, published July 5, 2012) as evidenced by Battery
University and ThomasNet. Final Act. 8.

2 The Appellant does not challenge the prior art status of any reference on
which the Examiner relies.
Appeal 2019-000850
Application 14/336,741

3
3. Claim 19 over Andrieu, Zhong, Lee, and Ostergaard
(US 2002/0000788 A1, published Jan. 3, 2002) as evidenced by Battery
University. Final Act. 9.
4. Claim 20 over Andrieu, Lee, Frey (US 2013/0015809 A1,
published Jan. 17, 2013), and Dong (US 2015/0162758 A1, published June
11, 2015, and claiming priority to a foreign document dated Dec. 10, 2013).
Final Act. 10.3
ANALYSIS
The Appellant presents arguments only for claim 9. We select claim 9
as representative, and the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall with
claim 9.
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Final Action dated January 25, 2018, and in the Examiner’s Answer dated
August 29, 2018.

3 The rejection headers in the Final Action appear to include some errors.
For example, the Examiner appears to rely on Frey in Rejection 2 but does
not list Frey in the header for Rejection 2. See Final Act. 8. The Examiner
does list Frey in the header for Rejection 4, but the Examiner does not cite or
discuss Frey in the analysis of Rejection 4. See id. at 10. It appears that the
Examiner may have mistakenly listed Frey instead of Zhong. Because the
Appellant does assert reversible error on the basis of these apparent errors,
we identify them here only to suggest that the Examiner may wish to correct
them in the event of further examination of the application on appeal.
Appeal 2019-000850
Application 14/336,741

4
The Examiner’s statement of the rejection appears at pages 4–5 of the
Final Action. Of particular relevance to the issues that the Appellant raises
in this appeal, the Examiner finds that (1) Andrieu teaches charging a battery
cell “at a current . . . based on a constant charge power . . . such that the cell
voltage continually increases during charging without a constant voltage
phase,” but that “Andrieu fails to explicitly teach that the current is based on
a constant charge power level . . . such that the battery acquires charge at a
predetermined rate,” and (2) Andrieu teaches terminating charging when the
battery voltage exceeds a recommended maximum voltage by a variable
amount defined by the current and a battery resistance, but that “Andrieu
fails to explicitly teach terminating [] charging the battery [when] voltage
exceeds a predetermined voltage.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Andrieu at
Abstract, Figs. 1–3).
As to (1), the Examiner finds that “Zhong teaches that the [charging]
current is based on a constant charge power level such that the battery
acquires charge at a predetermined rate,” and that “Zhong teaches this
invention improves heat dissipation and safety, reduces self-discharge, and
general performance.” Id. at 5 (internal citations omitted).
As to (2), the Examiner finds that “Lee teaches performing constant
current [charging] until the battery reaches a predetermined voltage . . .
whereby the battery charging is terminated in order to protect the battery
from damage of overcharge, decrease size, and increase efficiency.” Id.
(internal citation omitted). The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to “modify Andrieu with Lee to protect the battery, decrease
size, and increase the efficiency.” Id.
Appeal 2019-000850
Application 14/336,741

5
In view of those and other findings, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious “to modify Andrieu in view of Lee with Zhong to
provide improved heat dissipation, safety, and performance, and reduced
self-discharge.” Id.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant first argues that, because “Andrieu
teaches that the reference voltage during the first [charging] step is
constant,” Andrieu does not teach or suggest terminating charging when the
battery “voltage exceeds a recommended maximum voltage by an amount
that varies during charging.” Appeal Br. 6.
That argument is not persuasive of reversible error. In Andrieu’s
abstract, Andrieu teaches a charging method in which, during “a first step,”
“a constant current is imposed and . . . the voltage across said storage cell is
allowed to increase until it reaches a reference value.” Andrieu at Abstract.
Andrieu teaches that “[t]he method of the invention is characterized in that,
at each instant, said reference voltage is equal to the sum of the end-of-
charge voltage of the cell plus the product of the current multiplied by the
ohmic resistance of the cell.” Id.
In column 3, Andrieu elaborates and describes one embodiment in
which a first charging step achieves an end-of-charge voltage value of 4.2 V.
Andrieu at 3:47–50. However, Andrieu also describes an alternative
embodiment in which a first step charges the battery to a “reference
voltage . . . calculated by summing the end-of-charge voltage (4.2 V) and the
product of the current (1 A) multiplied by the ohmic resistance (0.1 Ω) of the
storage cell, i.e. 4.3 V.” Id. at 3:56–65. Andrieu then proceeds to its
“second step.” Id. at 3:66. On this record, it is unclear how Andrieu’s
disclosure of a first step involving charging to a reference voltage that is
Appeal 2019-000850
Application 14/336,741

6
calculated by summing the end-of-charge voltage and the product of the
current multiplied by the ohmic resistance differs from the recitation in
claim 9 of charging to a “voltage [that] exceeds a recommended maximum
voltage by a variable amount defined by the current and a battery
resistance,” particularly given that the Appellant has not argued that both
Andrieu’s current and Andrieu’s ohmic resistance are constant. See In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s
practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections . . . .”).
In any event, the Examiner proposes modifying Andrieu’s constant
current charging with Zhong’s constant power charging because Zhong
teaches “improve[d] heat dissipation and safety.” Final Act. 5. Thus, even
were the Appellant correct, based on Andrieu’s constant current charging,
that, “Andrieu teaches that the reference voltage during the first step is
constant,” Appeal Br. 6, the Appellant’s argument fails to address the
Examiner’s rationale, which relies on Andrieu in combination with Zhong’s
disclosure of constant power charging. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.”).
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that the combined prior art teaches or suggests the
disputed subject matter.
The Appellant also argues that Lee does not specify a voltage at which
charging is terminated. Appeal Br. 7. That argument is not persuasive
because the Examiner relies on the combination of Andrieu and Zhong—not
Appeal 2019-000850
Application 14/336,741

7
Lee— as teaching or suggesting the specific voltage at which a first charging
step ends, and the Examiner relies on Lee for the disclosure of terminating
charging when a predetermined voltage is reached “to protect the battery
from damage due to overcharging.” Lee at 5:18–20. It would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to terminate charging at the
maximum voltage disclosed by Andrieu, i.e., Ur = Uf + (Ic x R), because that
is the voltage at which Andrieu teaches ending a first charging step. See
Andrieu at 2:20–25.
The Appellant also argues that Zhong “does not indicate the manner
in which” its constant power charging “is performed,” and that, “[a]s
Andrieu is based on a constant current, the incorporation of the constant
power of Zhong would be incompatible with the constant current charging
mode of Andrieu.” Appeal Br. 7. That argument is not persuasive. To the
extent that constant power charging and constant current charging differ in
ways relevant to the patentability of the claims,4 the record indicates that
constant current and constant power are alternative charging methods, and
the Examiner determines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to use constant power charging as Zhong discloses to
“improve[] heat dissipation and safety, reduce[] self-discharge, and
[improve] general performance.” Final Act. 5. The Appellant does not
meaningfully or persuasively dispute that determination. Zhong is presumed

4 The Examiner appears to find that Andrieu’s constant current charging falls
within the scope of the term “charging . . . at a current based on a constant
charge power level.” See Final Act. 4 (“[A]s the current is constantly being
supplied, electrical power is constantly being applied, see the ThomasNet
evidence; thus constant current is based on constant charge [i.e. electrical]
power.” (bracketed material in original)).
Appeal 2019-000850
Application 14/336,741

8
to be enabling, In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1287–88 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (prior art references are presumed to be enabling), and the Appellant
provides no persuasive explanation or evidence as to (1) why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered Zhong’s constant power
charging to be incompatible with Andrieu, or (2) why incorporating Zhong’s
constant power charging into Andrieu would have been beyond the ordinary
level of skill in the art. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ References Affirmed Reversed
9, 11, 13, 14,
16, 17 103
Andrieu, Zhong,
Lee
9, 11, 13,
14, 16, 17
10 103 Andrieu, Zhong, Lee, Schaefer 10
19 103 Andrieu, Zhong, Lee, Ostergaard 19
20 103 Andrieu, Lee, Frey, Dong 20
Overall
Outcome
9–11, 13, 14,
16, 17, 19, 20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED