Ex Parte Adelman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11829904 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LONNIE W. ADELMAN, CLARENCE R. KING III,
PATRICK REGAN, and JOSE DE JESUS RAMIREZ

__________

Appeal 2012-002048
Application 11/829,904
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-7 and 23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to a circuit “which may be
implemented in charging devices to stop charging a battery . . . when the
battery is a non-rechargeable battery” (Spec. ¶ 10).
Claim 1 is illustrative (key limitations in dispute italicized):
Appeal 2012-002048
Application 11/829,904

2
1. A method comprising:
a closing a latch to stop delivery of a charging current to a
battery when voltage produced by the battery indicates that the battery
is non-rechargeable;
dropping a threshold from an initial value for the voltage
produced by the battery to a baseline value so that the latch remains
closed even if the voltage produced by the non-rechargeable battery
drops below the initial value of the threshold;
resetting the latch each time a battery is connected to the
charging device; and
providing a non-charging current to a device including the
battery to keep the device powered on even after charge cutoff, the
non-charging current is less than a level of current that vents a non-
rechargeable battery.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x.)
Appellants appeal the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-7 and
23 as being unpatentable over Dowe (US 6,043,625, issued Mar. 28, 2000)
in view of Breen et al. (US 2004/0263123 A1, published Dec. 30, 2004) and
Veselic (US 2008/0278119 A1, published Nov. 13, 2008).

ISSUE
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner reversibly
erred in determining that the combination of Breen’s system for providing
power to a device with Dowe’s battery charging system would have
rendered obvious the claimed step of “providing a non-charging current to a
device including the battery to keep the device powered on even after charge
cutoff, the non-charging current is less than a level of current that vents a
non-rechargeable battery”? We decide this issue in the affirmative.
Appeal 2012-002048
Application 11/829,904

3
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, the sole
independent claim on appeal, because the combination of Dowe in view of
Breen does not include all of the claim limitations. First, Appellants argue
that Dowe does not disclose “dropping a threshold from an initial value
for the voltage produced by the battery to a baseline value.” App. Br. 5.
Second, Appellants contend that Breen does not disclose “another current
that is less than a level of current that vents a non-rechargeable battery.”
Id. at 8.
Appellants’ first argument regarding Dowe is not persuasive because
the Examiner reasonably finds that the dropping of the threshold is met by
the circuit of Dowe.
This threshold is clearly dropped due to the fact that even if the
battery self-discharges down to a lower level (a level that would
be identified as a rechargeable battery), the output of OA3
remains high causing Q2 to shut off, which in turn blocks
charging current to the battery. Therefore, the threshold then
has a baseline of close to 0 volts since OA3 is not reset until the
battery is removed ([Dowe] col 5 ln 8-14).
Ans. 8-9; see also id. at 5 (citing Dowe, col. 5, ll. 8-23, col. 8, ll. 19-23.)
Appellants’ specific circuit shown in Figure 2 which lowers the threshold is
not required by claim 1. Cf. Ans. 9; App. Br. 6-7. Limitations not appearing
in the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding Breen, however, Appellants persuasively argue that Breen
does not teach the recited step of “providing a non-charging current to a
device including the battery,” wherein this non-charging current 1) “keep[s]
Appeal 2012-002048
Application 11/829,904

4
the device powered on even after charge cutoff” and 2) “is less than a level
of current that vents a non-rechargeable battery” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner contends that Breen teaches providing a current to keep
the device powered on and that this current is a “non-charging current”
because the current from the AC adapter to the device may be physically
disconnected from the batteries in Breen’s system:
The claim language recites “providing a non-charging current to
a device,” and this is clearly met by Breen by use of the
pathway from the AC adapter to the power for device 101 (Fig.
1), wherein that current provided is considered a non-charging
current because it is not used to charge the batteries when they
are disconnected.
Ans. 9. The Examiner’s position is that Breen teaches a non-charging
current “less than a level of current that vents a non-rechargeable battery”
because the current provided to the disconnected batteries would be zero
current. Id. at 10 (“such values for the current that are less than a level of
current that vents a non-rechargeable battery include 0 amperes.”)
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s construction of the
disputed claim limitations is not reasonable. See Reply Br. 3. In Breen, the
current supplied to the device after charge cutoff is not zero and that same
current has not been shown be at a level that is “less than a level of current
that vents a non-rechargeable battery.” Appellants’ position that the zero
current provided to Breen’s disconnected batteries cannot also be the current
provided by the AC adapter to power Breen’s device is reasonable. Id.
Appellants also correctly state that Breen does not disclose providing
different levels of current to a device including a battery, or anything with
respect to current levels for a non-rechargeable battery. See App. Br. 8-9.
Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that Breen teaches the step of
Appeal 2012-002048
Application 11/829,904

5
providing a non-charging current as required by claim 1 or that “it would
have been obvious to select a current that is less than a level of current that
vents a non-rechargeable battery” (see Ans. 5) in view of the combination of
Dowe and Breen.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED

cdc