Ex Parte Cooley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201713746339 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017) 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. 13/746,339 01/22/2013 Robert B. Cooley P018699-GMVE-CD 1090 80748 7590 09/28/2017 Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER RIVERA VARGAS, MANUEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2864 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2017 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD Ex parte ROBERT B. COOLEY, WILLIAM M. HARE, MICHAEL A. ASSENMACHER, and NICHOLAS J. HAINER Appeal 2016-008215 Application 13/746,3391 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as GM Global Technology Operations LLC. App. Br. 1. 2 Our decision makes reference to the Specification filed Jan. 22, 2013 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 6, 2016 as corrected Apr. 27, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Aug. 15, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Aug. 29, 2016. Appeal 2016-008215 Application 13/746,339 The claimed invention is related to “electric vehicle charge-related information processing and display.” Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A system, comprising: an electric vehicle including an electric vehicle battery; a vehicle network integrated in the electric vehicle; a display device disposed in the electric vehicle, the display device communicatively coupled to the vehicle network; a computer processor communicatively coupled to the vehicle network; and logic executable by the computer processor, the logic configured to implement a method, the method comprising: monitoring, over the vehicle network, components relating to a charging function of the electric vehicle battery; determining, from data resulting from the monitoring, factors affecting the charging function, the factors including one of a charging station proximity and a charge cable proximity, and a charge rate; processing the data to determine an impact of the factors; and displaying results of the processing on the display device. App. Br. 11, Claims Appendix (as corrected Apr. 27, 2016). The Examiner maintains and Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more; 2 Appeal 2016-008215 Application 13/746,339 2. Claims 1^1, 6-12, and 14—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hershkovitz;3 and 3. Claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hershkovitz and Ishida.4 Ans. 3; App. Br. 5—9; Final Act. 2—7. We have evaluated the arguments and evidence presented by Appellants and find them unpersuasive of reversible error by the Examiner for the reasons stated by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Rejection of Claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 The Examiner finds that claims 1—20 are directed to the abstract idea of having a processor monitor components relating to charging functions of an electric vehicle, determine factors affecting the charging function, and determining an impact of the factors. Final Act. 2. The Examiner further finds that the additional elements claimed do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because conventional equipment is used for data communication recited at a high level of generality. Id. Appellants argue the claims together. App. Br. 5. Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative. Claims 2—20 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because the additional claim elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the 3 Hershkovitz et al., US 2010/0094496 Al, pub. Apr. 15, 2010 (“Hershkovitz”). 4 Ishida et al., US 2013/0119947 Al, pub. May 16, 2013 (“Ishida”). 3 Appeal 2016-008215 Application 13/746,339 judicial exception. App. Br. 5. According to Appellants, paragraph 38 of the Specification supports this argument because “logic 111 calculates the minimum bottleneck in the system, performs a circuit quality check of a power source in response to operator input to the operator interface 112” and the circuit quality information improves “an overall experience of owning an[d] operating an electric vehicle.” Id. Appellants further assert in the Reply Brief that “the invention represents an improvement in overall charging of an electric vehicle” which “will lead to greater consumer acceptance of electric vehicle technology.” Reply Br. 3. Section 101 provides that “[wjhoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The provision, however, “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S.___ , 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.___ , 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). Under the two-stage framework set forth by the Supreme Court, a claim falls outside § 101 where (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and ‘as an ordered combination[,]’” do not add enough to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 79 (2012)). 4 Appeal 2016-008215 Application 13/746,339 Appellants’ argument that, under the second prong of the Supreme Court’s framework, the claims are patent-eligible because they are “significantly more than the judicial exception” (App. Br. 5) is unpersuasive because Appellants do not adequately rebut the Examiner’s finding that the additional elements of the claims are conventional equipment used for data communication (Final Act. 2; Ans. 3). Nor do Appellants adequately explain how the circuit quality check as claimed is a technical improvement over the abstract idea of monitoring components relating to charging functions of an electric vehicle using a computer processor. The key question is “whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335—36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellants do not direct us to any structures recited in the claims that improve or are improvements to a processor monitoring components relating to charging functions of an electric vehicle, nor do Appellants provide any technical basis for the asserted improvement in charging an electric vehicle. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than instructions to collect and display electronic information relating to charging functions of an electric vehicle using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359—60 (method claims reciting concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer which do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself “amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer”); cf. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[S]ome improvements in 5 Appeal 2016-008215 Application 13/746,339 computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.”); Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non- conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame held not directed to an abstract idea). Based on the cited record on appeal, we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that claims 1—20 are unpatentable as directed to an abstract idea for which a computer processor is invoked merely as a tool to collect and display electronic information. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims held ineligible as directed to an abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by humans). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Rejection of Claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) The Examiner finds that claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hershkovitz’s system and method for operating an electric vehicle for the reasons stated on pages 3—6 of the Final Action and pages 4—6 of the Answer. Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, which Appellants argue together as a group, Appellants assert that the Examiner erred because “[r]educing a rate of recharging as discussed in Hershkovitz et al. does not equate to determining a charge rate as a factor affecting the charging function.” App. 6 Appeal 2016-008215 Application 13/746,339 Br. 7. Appellants further argue that Hershkovitz fails to teach processing data to determine an impact of the factors and that the processing of data in Hershkovitz does not equate to determining an impact of the factors on charging whereas the feedback provided by the claimed system “allows a user to better understand how their charging methods are impacted by one or more of the factors.” Id. Regarding claims 3,11, and 19, which Appellants argue together as a group, Appellants contend that displaying charge levels and updating maps as taught by Hershkovitz “does not equate to a spectrum of values” or “a graphical representation of charge-related impact data.” Id. Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, which Appellants argue together as a group, Appellants contend that information about the charge status, charge levels, and updating maps with battery service stations as taught by Hershkovitz “does not equate to displaying a spectrum of capabilities let alone a graphical representation of the smallest charge capability.” Id. at 8. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error because the Examiner’s finding that Hershkovitz’s system determines a charge rate, charges the battery packs at a charge rate because it knows when to terminate the charging processing when the battery packs are fully charged, discloses the estimated time until a battery is recharged, and discloses at least a charging station proximity (Ans. 4—5) are supported by the preponderance of the evidence cited in this appeal. The Examiner’s finding that Hershkovitz teaches displaying the charge capability as a graphical representation of a spectrum of values (Ans. 5) is also supported by the preponderance of the evidence because Hershkovitz discloses an on-board display screen for providing status information on the vehicle including the 7 Appeal 2016-008215 Application 13/746,339 charge level (Hershkovitz 1105) in addition to a map displayed in the user interface of the electric vehicle the set of suitable battery service stations based on the charge level of the battery packs (Hershkovitz 1192). Appellants do not adequately distinguish the system and methods of the claims over Hershkovitz because the claims do not require any particular structure for displaying a spectrum of values nor do Appellants adequately explain why the spectrum of suitable service stations graphically depicted on Hershkovitz’s map does not provide a graphical display of charge capability, including the smallest charge rate capability. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Hershkovitz charges the battery packs at a charge rate because it knows when to terminate the charging process when the battery packets are fully charged and estimates the time until a battery is recharged. Ans. 4 (citing Hershkovitz || 108, 120). Appellants’ argument in the Reply Brief that “charging station proximity” and “charge cable proximity” recited in the claims are not disclosed by Hershkovitz because “the process of the present invention assumes that a vehicle is physically or wirelessly engaged with a charging system” (Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive because limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). In sum, we are not persuaded of reversible error by the Examiner in rejecting claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hershkovitz. Rejection of Claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds that claims 5 and 13 would have been obvious over the combination of Ishida’s disclosure of calculating drops in voltage 8 Appeal 2016-008215 Application 13/746,339 from the voltage information in a vehicle and Hershkovitz’s system for operating an electric vehicle for the reasons stated on pages 6—7 of the Final Action and page 6 of the Answer. Appellants argue that, in addition to their arguments pertaining to Hershkovitz and claim 1, the Examiner erred because “Ishida et al. does not . . . discuss, teach or suggest to monitor voltage information representing one of the factors, e.g., charging station proximity, a charge cable proximity and a charge rate, affect charge rates.” App. Br. 9. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because Appellants do not adequately show that “one of the factors” recited in claim 5 excludes voltage information. Moreover, Ishida explicitly teaches “control[ling] the charging quantity of the electric vehicle so as to reduce the ill effects on the surrounding loads in the electric power system to which the electric vehicle is connected” (Ishida 149) as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 7). Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence cited in this appeal record supports the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Hershkovitz and Ishida. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation