Ex Parte Fasse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2013

12013153 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 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.
12/013,153 01/11/2008 Martin Fasse P001846-FCA-CHE 8036
65798 7590 11/18/2013
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 200
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
OMAR, AHMED H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2013 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 MARTIN FASSE, ANDREAS KOENEKAMP,
and JOCHEN SCHAFFNIT
____________

Appeal 2011-008984
Application 12/013,153
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008984
Application 12/013,153

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for providing battery
state of charge and voltage equalization of battery cells in a battery that is
part of a fuel cell system during operation of the fuel cell system. App. Br.
7-9. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A method for providing battery state of charge and
voltage equalization of battery cells in a battery that is part of a
fuel cell system during operation of the fuel cell system, said
method comprising:
determining whether a state of charge and voltage
equalization has been requested;
determining whether the temperature of the battery is
greater than a predetermined temperature if the equalization has
been requested;
charging the battery if the battery temperature is below
the predetermined temperature, where charging the battery
includes overcharging the battery so that each cell in the battery
receives about a 100% state of charge; and
interrupting the equalization charging of the battery if a
power request is made to the fuel cell system that exceeds a
predetermined power request that would require using battery
power and battery discharge.
The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Paryani US 6,011,380 Jan. 4, 2000
Appeal 2011-008984
Application 12/013,153

3
Koch US 6,225,780 B1 May 1, 2001
Kopf et al. US 6,744,237 B2 Jun. 1, 2004

Appellants, App. Br. 10, request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s final office action:
I. Claims 1, 2, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koch and Kopf.
II. Claims 3-8 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koch, Kopf, and Paryani.

OPINION
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that the combined teachings of Koch and Kopf would have led
one skilled in the art to a method of equalizing the state of charge and
voltage of cells in a battery in a fuel cell system comprising the step of
interrupting the equalization charging of the battery when a power request is
made to the fuel cell system that requires using battery power as required by
the subject matter of independent claims 1, 10, and 16?1, 2
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we adopt the Examiner’s fact findings (Ans. 4-6) as our own
and we affirm the stated rejections for substantially the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Answer.

1 Appellants argue independent claims 1, 10, and 16 together. App. Br. 11.
We select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims and will limit our
discussion to this claim.
2 A discussion of Paryani is unnecessary for disposition of the present
appeal. Appellants did not present substantive arguments addressing this
reference. The Examiner relied upon this reference for features not related
to the dispositive issue.
Appeal 2011-008984
Application 12/013,153

4
Appellants argue Koch describes terminating the battery equalization
process when a predetermined time period expires, or when a cooling
process stops which is not the same as interrupting the equalization charging
of the battery as required by the claimed invention. App. Br. 12. Appellants
argue that Kopf does not teach or suggest interrupting the equalization
charging of the battery if a power request is made to the fuel cell system that
exceeds a predetermined power request as recited in claims 1 and 16, or
interrupting the battery equalization charging if certain conditions are met,
as recited in claims 10 and 16. Id. 13-14.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness determination. The Examiner found Koch discloses
a vehicle battery cell equalization process where the current (power) used to
charge the cells is a function of a temperature change as required by the
subject matter of independent claim 1. Ans. 4; Koch, col. 3, ll. 16-43. The
Examiner found Kopf discloses a fuel cell system for the operation of a
vehicle comprising a fuel cell as a primary source of power and a battery as
a secondary source of power for the operation of a vehicle. Ans. 4-5; Kopf,
col. 4, ll. 46-54; col. 6, ll. 27-41. Kopf discloses the fuel cell provides all the
power to the vehicle when the power requirement is equal or less than the
fuel cell’s power capacity. Kopf, col. 4, ll. 46-54. Kopf discloses if the
vehicle’s power requirement is less than the fuel cell’s power capacity, the
excess fuel cell power is then diverted to charge the battery. Id. at col. 6, ll.
27-41. If the vehicle’s power requirement exceeds the fuel cell’s power
capacity, charging of the battery would be interrupted at this point to allow
the battery to supply the additional power required by the vehicle. Id.
Appeal 2011-008984
Application 12/013,153

5
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected
that the battery of Koch would have been suitable for use in the fuel cell
system of Kopf because Kopf states that the “storage device” (or battery)
used in its system is “conventional in the art,” such as a nickel metal hydride
battery (Kopf, col. 2, ll. 37-46), and Koch specifically teaches using nickel
hydride batteries (Koch, col. 4, ll. 25-28). It would have been expected that
this type of battery in Kopf’s system would undergo the cell equalization
process when the vehicle’s power requirement is less than the fuel cell’s
power capacity because the fuel cell’s excess power would have been
diverted to the battery for charging. Kopf, col. 6, ll. 27-41. During
operation when the vehicle required more power than could have been
supplied by the fuel cell, the battery charging and equalization process
would have been interrupted to meet the vehicle’s power requirement. It
have been expected that when the vehicle’s power requirement returned to a
level that did not require more power than could have been provided by the
fuel cell, the excess power from the fuel cell would have been diverted to the
battery to resume charging and equalization.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 1, 2, and 9 over Koch and Kopf and claims 3-8 and 10-20 over
Koch, Kopf, and Paryani for the reasons given above and those presented by
the Examiner.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

Appeal 2011-008984
Application 12/013,153

6
TIME PERIOD
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).

AFFIRMED

cdc