Ex Parte DeDona et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 23, 2012

11275262 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 23, 2012)

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.
11/275,262 12/21/2005 Matthew DeDona 81044508 1359
28395 7590 08/23/2012
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
EBNER, KATY MEYER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW DEDONA, MAJED MOHAMMED,
JOSEPHINE LEE, and DARYL SITAR
____________

Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and WILLIAM A.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262

- 2 -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 14-17, 20 and 21 which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a power supply system
and method for powering a vehicle. The vehicle includes wheels and an
electric machine that provides torque to drive at least one of the wheels.
One of the objects of the invention is to eliminate or reduce the need for a
low voltage electrical power source, such as a low voltage battery. Spec. 2,
ll. 5-7. The invention accomplishes this objective by using a high voltage
power supply system (the “energy storage system”), such as a high voltage
battery, and then relies on a converter to supply the low voltage power needs
of the vehicle. Spec. 2, l. 11 – Spec. 3, l. 18. In addition, however, the
invention inhibits activation of the voltage conversion system when there is
insufficient energy in the energy storage system to start the electric machine.
In other words, the system will discontinue supplying power to low voltage
devices, such as a radio, when there is insufficient energy in the high voltage
battery to start the electric machine, thus, the system conserves energy in
order to retain energy to start the electric machine. Spec. 6, ll. 7-12. Claim
1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262

- 3 -
1. A power supply system for a vehicle, the vehicle
including wheels and an electric machine operable to provide
torque to drive at least one of the wheels, the vehicle further
including at least one low voltage device capable of creating a
demand for low voltage power and a system to start the electric
machine, the power supply system comprising:
an energy storage system capable of providing power to
operate the electric machine;
a voltage conversion device capable of reducing a
voltage of the power provided by the energy storage system, the
voltage conversion device being electrically connected to the
energy storage system such that at least some of the voltage
reduced power provided by the energy storage system can be
used to effect an electrical connection between the energy
storage system and the electric machine; and
a controller configured to:
monitor a demand for low voltage power when the
vehicle is in a key-off state,
monitor the energy stored by the energy storage
system when the vehicle is in the key-off state, and
activate the voltage conversion device when the
vehicle is in the key-off state, low voltage power is demanded,
and there is sufficient energy in the energy storage system to
simultaneously support a low voltage load and activation of the
system to start the electric machine.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Nada US 6,522,960 B2 Feb. 18, 2003
Greenwood US 4,839,530 Jun. 13, 1989

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Nada.
Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262

- 4 -
2. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nada in view of Greenwood.

THE ISSUE
The primary issue that is dispositive of this appeal is whether Nada
discloses a controller configured to perform the following claimed functions
while in a “key-off” state:
monitor a demand for low voltage power when the
vehicle is in a key-off state,
monitor the energy stored by the energy storage
system when the vehicle is in the key-off state, and
activate the voltage conversion device when the
vehicle is in the key-off state, low voltage power is demanded,
and there is sufficient energy in the energy storage system to
simultaneously support a low voltage load and activation of the
system to start the electric machine.

Claim 1 excerpt (emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the rejection of the independent claims (1, 7,
and 14) is improper because Nada fails to perform the claimed monitoring
limitations when the vehicle is in a “key-off” state (claims 1 and 7) or when
the vehicle is “off” (claim 14). The debate between the Examiner and the
Appellants centers on what it means for a vehicle to be in a “key-off” or
“off” state, which is a claim construction issue.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for
Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262

- 5 -
claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health
and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The Specification provides a definition of “key-off” state as when a
vehicle is in an inoperative or power-off state:
Because some vehicles may not use a key to initiate vehicle
on/off functions, it is worth noting that as used herein, the
terms "key-on" and "key-off" refer to general vehicle states.
Specifically, a "key-on" state exists when a vehicle is in an
operative, or power-on state, regardless of whether a key is
used. Similarly, a "key-off" state exists when a vehicle is in an
inoperative, or power-off state, again, independent of whether a
key is used.
The control electronics 28 are configured to determine
whether the vehicle is in a power-on state, e.g., key-on state, or
power-off state, e.g., key-off state.
Spec. 5, ll. 3-13 (emphasis added).
The Specification also describes:
In conventional vehicles, and even in electric or hybrid
electric vehicles, a low voltage electrical power source, e.g., a
12 volt battery, is used to power the low voltage loads of the
ignition system. Before the ignition system is activated, i.e.,
when the vehicle is in a key-off state, the low voltage electrical
power source also supports other low voltage loads, e.g., an
anti-theft device and memory in such devices as radios, clocks,
and other electronic devices. These are so-called "key-off" low
voltage loads.
Spec. 1, ll. 24-33 (emphasis added). In keeping with the definition provided
in the Specification, we construe “key-off” state to refer to an inoperative or
power-off state of a vehicle, i.e., when the ignition switch is in the “off”
position. Similarly, we construe the phrase “when the vehicle is off” in
claim 14 to refer to an inoperative or power-off state of a vehicle.
Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262

- 6 -
Vehicles have motors, which may include electric machines and, in
the case of hybrid vehicles, internal combustion engines. Spec. 1. Such
motors can be turned “on” and then later they are turned “off.” The issue
that arises in the current debate between the Appellants and the Examiner is
whether the vehicle being “on” or “off” is co-extensive with the motor being
“on” or “off.” Appellants, at Reply Brief page 2, argue that the vehicle state
of Nada relied on by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer at page 5 is a
state in which the motor has not yet been started, but nevertheless the
vehicle should still be considered to be “on” because the first step in the
recited method of Nada is “in response to a requirement to start the vehicle.”
See also Nada, col. 5, ll. 5-6; 15-16; and 31-32. In view of the teachings of
Appellants’ Specification taken as a whole, including the description of the
vehicle being in a power-off state “before the ignition system is activated,”
we are inclined to agree with Appellants that when the ignition system has
been activated, the vehicle is no longer in an “off” state.
Applying the claims as construed, we REVERSE the rejections of
the claims; our reasoning is set forth below.
Claims 1 and 7
These two independent claims each have limitations directed to a
controller configured to monitor a demand for low voltage power when the
vehicle is in a “key-off” state. They each also have limitations directed to
the controller being configured to monitor the energy stored by the energy
storage system when the vehicle is in the key-off state. Appellants argue,
among other things, that these limitations are not met by Nada. App. Br. 7.
Appellants are correct, given the claim construction of “key-off” adopted
herein.
Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262

- 7 -
The Examiner found that “Nada discloses a system in which a demand
for low voltage power (i.e. the operation of the control system – see column
6, lines 27-31) is detected when the vehicle is in a key-off state (i.e. prior to
starting the vehicle – see column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 13).” Ans. 5.
However, Nada explains that the system compares an observed voltage of a
low voltage battery with a preset minimum reference voltage “in response to
a requirement to start the vehicle.” Col. 5, ll. 5-8. The meaning of a
“requirement to start the vehicle” in Nada is further explained in column 11.
When the driver turns the ignition key to require a start of the
vehicle, the low voltage power source Vcc is supplied as shown
in FIG. 2. The master control CPU 272 starts the series of
processing in response to the supply of the low voltage power
source Vcc. . . . The ignition sensor 169 outputs the starting
requirement signal IG in response to a turning motion of the
ignition key. The starting requirement signal IG switches the
relay 197 on to allow supply of the low voltage power source
Vcc.
Nada, col. 11, ll. 8-22 (emphasis added). Thus, the state that the Examiner
relies on as being a “key-off” state occurs after the driver turns the ignition
key to require a start of the vehicle. Nada does not perform the steps of: (i)
monitoring a demand for low voltage power; or (ii) monitoring the energy
stored by the energy storage system, until after relay 197 is closed following
receipt of a “starting requirement signal” from the ignition sensor 169. As
we understand and interpret the term “key-off” state, Nada only begins to
output a “starting requirement signal” after the ignition key is turned from
an “off” to an “on” position so as to place the vehicle in an operative or
power-on state. Thus, the monitoring functions described by Nada and
relied on by the Examiner do not occur in a “key-off” state as required by
claims 1 and 7.
Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262

- 8 -
A finding of anticipation requires that each and every limitation is
found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Sanofi-
Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Inasmuch
as there are claim limitations in claims 1 and 7 that are missing from Nada,
Nada does not anticipate such claims. Accordingly, we REVERSE the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 7. In view of our finding that Nada
does not anticipate claims 1 and 7, we also REVERSE the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 4-6, 9 and 10.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is directed to a method of providing power to a vehicle that
includes a limitation of monitoring the demand for a low voltage power
“when the vehicle is off” and a limitation of monitoring the energy stored by
the energy storage system “when the vehicle is off.” The issue here is very
similar to that of claims 1 and 7, namely, is the vehicle considered to be “on”
or “off” when the ignition key is turned so as to cause ignition sensor 169 to
output a starting requirement signal to relay 197. We have construed the
term “off” in claim 14 to have substantially the same meaning as the “key-
off” state in claims 1 and 7. In view of such construction and for the same
reasons provided supra in our analysis of claims 1 and 7, we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 14 because Nada fails to disclose the monitoring steps
“when the vehicle is off.”
Accordingly, we find that Nada lacks disclosure of the limitation of
claim 14 directed to monitoring the energy stored by the energy storage
system when the vehicle is off. Consequently, Nada fails to anticipate claim
14 and we, therefore, REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. In
Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262

- 9 -
view of our finding that Nada does not anticipate claim 14, we also
REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 15-17.
Claims 20 and 21
Claim 20 depends from claim 1 and adds a dependent limitation
directed to the controller having alternating, periodic “wake” and “sleep”
states. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner rejected claim 20 as being
unpatentable over Nada in view of Greenwood. The Examiner maintained
that Nada met all the limitations of the claimed invention except for the
disclosure of a sleep state and a wake state. The Examiner cited Greenwood
as teaching a power supply system for a vehicle wherein a controller enters a
sleep state when the vehicle is off and there is no demand for low voltage
power and that such controller enters a wake state to monitor demands for
low voltage power. Ans. 4-5 (citing Greenwood, col. 4, ll. 18-46). The
Examiner relies solely on Nada for all of the limitations of claim 1. Ans. 7.
In view of our finding above that Nada fails to teach the “key-off”
limitations in claim 1, coupled with the fact that the Examiner has not
pointed to Greenwood as meeting any of the limitations of claim 1, we
REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. Inasmuch as Nada fails to
disclose the “key-off” elements of claim 1, the Examiner has failed to make
out a prima facie case that claim 20 would have been obvious. Claim 21
depends from claim 20, which, in turn as discussed above, depends from
claim 1. Inasmuch as we have found that the Examiner has failed to make
out a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 20, the same
outcome necessarily is called for with respect to claim 21. Consequently,
we also REVERSE the rejection with respect to claim 21.
Appeal 2010-008551
Application 11/275,262

- 10 -

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of all of the claims that have
been presented in this appeal.

REVERSED

hh