Ex Parte Ciaramitaro

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2013

11651129 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2013)

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.
11/651,129 01/09/2007 Christopher M. Ciaramitaro 2671-000015 1096
27572 7590 07/23/2013
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
OMAR, AHMED H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER M. CIARAMITARO

Appeal 2011-000898
1

Application 11/651,129
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
The real party in interest is Cobasys LLC. (App Br. 3.)
Appeal 2011-000,898
Application 11/651,129

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-25. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a battery control module (30) for recharging a
rechargeable battery (20). (Fig.1, Abstr.) In particular, after measuring the
voltage of the battery (20), a voltage measuring module (60) takes the first
and second derivatives of the measured voltage (dV/dt, d
2
V/dt
2
) to thereby
produce estimates of first and second rates of change therein respectively.
Then, a charge control module (68) estimates the maximum charging current
in the battery (20) based on the first estimate (dV/dt). Upon determining
that the charging current has reached the estimated maximum (i.e., (d
2
V/dt
2

> dV/dt), a current control module (70) turns off the maximum charging
current. (Fig. 2, [0005], [0027].)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A battery control module for a rechargeable battery,
comprising:
a voltage measuring module that measures a voltage of the
rechargeable battery and that estimates a first derivative of the voltage with
Appeal 2011-000,898
Application 11/651,129

3
respect to time (dV/dt) and a second derivative of the voltage with respect to
time (d
2
V/dt
2
);
a charge control module that estimates a maximum charging
current based on dV/dt; and
a current control module that limits a charging current of the
rechargeable battery to the maximum charging current and that turns off the
maximum charging current when d
2
V/dt
2
is greater than dV/dt.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Kizu US 5,140,252 Aug. 18, 1992
Tsenter US 5,900,718 May 4, 1999

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsenter and Kizu.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 11-17, and the Reply Brief, pages 5-12.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of Tsenter and Kizu teaches or suggests limiting
the charging current of a rechargeable battery to an estimated maximum
charging current based on a first rate of change in the battery voltage
Appeal 2011-000,898
Application 11/651,129

4
(dV/dt), and turning off the maximum charging current when a second rate
of change in the battery voltage (d
2
V/dt
2
) exceeds the first rate of change
(dV/dt), as recited in claim 1?

Appellant argues that the proffered combination does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 11-15, Reply
Br. 5-9.) In particular, Appellant argues that while Tsenter discloses
adjusting the charging current in a battery based on a first rate of change and
a second rate of change in the voltage therein, Tsenter does not teach
estimating a maximum charging current based on the first rate of change in
the measured voltage of the battery. (App. Br. 12.) Further, Appellant
argues that Kizu teaches turning off the maximum charging current before
d
2
V/dt
2
exceeds dV/dt, as opposed to turning off the maximum charging
current when d
2
V/dt
2
exceeds dV/dt, as required by the claim. (Id. at 13-14,
Reply Br. 7.) Therefore, Appellant submits that the suggested combination
does not render claim 1 unpatentable. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds Appellant’s Specification contradicts
Appellant’s argument that “simply adjusting or changing the charging
current does not correspond to estimating maximum charging current.” (Ans.
14.) In particular, the Examiner concludes that Appellant’s own
Specification describes the term “estimates” as “the process of selecting the
maximum charging current to be applied to the battery based on detection
the inflection point on the dV/dt curve.” (Id.) According to the Examiner,
Tsenter discloses that “the maximum charging current at any point is
Appeal 2011-000,898
Application 11/651,129

5
estimated based on the occurrence of an inflection point on the dV/dt curve
such that when an inflection point takes place[,] the maximum charging
current to be applied to the battery is changed from one value to another.”
(Id. at 12.) Consequently, the Examiner finds that because the disputed
limitation does not preclude the inclusion of other factors besides dV/dt in
the estimation of the maximum charging current, Tsenter’s disclosure of
adjusting the maximum charging current at various inflection points based
on various factors on the dV/dt curve teaches the disputed “estimating”
limitation. (Id. at 14.) Further, the Examiner finds that because Kizu
similarly discloses that the maximum charging current occurs at any
inflection point, the disclosure of turning off the charging current when
d
2
V/dt
2
exceeds dV/dt at inflection point B teaches the disputed “turning
off” limitation. (Id. at 15-16.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection regarding claim 1. We note at the
outset while Appellant alleges that estimating the maximum charging current
based on dV/dt is not the same as adjusting the charging current at an
inflection point based on the dV/dt, Appellant has failed to respond to or
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s specific finding that a maximum charging
current occurs at any inflection point on the dV/dt curve. Further, because
the claim indicates that estimates result from taking the rate of changes of
the voltage, we agree with the Examiner that Tsenter’s disclosure of
adjusting the maximum charging current at an inflection point on the dV/dt
Appeal 2011-000,898
Application 11/651,129

6
curve teaches or suggests estimating the maximum charging current based
on dV/dt.
Next, we note Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that
Kizu discloses turning off the charging current at point B where d
2
V/dt
2

exceeds dV/dt. Rather, Appellant disputes that the maximum current does
not occur at that point. Instead, Appellant submits that it occurs at point A
where d
2
V/dt
2
does not exceed dV/dt. (App. Br. 13-14, Reply Br. 7.) As
discussed above, because Appellant has failed to respond to or persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s finding that a maximum charging current occurs at any
each inflection point on the curve, we find that at inflection point B where
d
2
v/dt
2
exceeds dV/dt and the charging current Is is turned off, Is teaches or
suggests a maximum charging current. It follows that Appellant has not
shown error in the Examiner rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-25, because Appellant has either
not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-25 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, while Appellant raised additional arguments for
patentability of the cited claims, we find that the Examiner has rebutted in
the Answer each and every one of those arguments by a preponderance of
the evidence. (Ans. 16-17.) Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings
and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Consequently, we have found no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2-25.
Appeal 2011-000,898
Application 11/651,129

7
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25 as set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

dw