Ex Parte Fleckenstein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13918203 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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.
13/918,203 06/14/2013 Matthias FLECKENSTEIN 080437.65651US 1827
23911 7590
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
MERLINO, DAVID P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
edocket @ crowell. com
tche @ crowell. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHIAS FLECKENSTEIN, THOMAS HOEFLER,
ANDREAS WILDE, OLIVER BOHLEN, and DANIEL KUHN
Appeal 2016-005186
Application 13/918,20s1
Technology Center 3600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 9—20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. Claims 1—8 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Bayerische Motoren Werke
Aktiengesellschaft. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-005186
Application 13/918,203
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to controlling temperature of an
electromechanical energy storage device (e.g., a rechargeable electric
battery) in a vehicle. Spec. 1. Claim 9, the sole independent claim, is
illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as
follows:
9. A temperature control method for an electrochemical
energy storage device in a vehicle, wherein the electrochemical
energy storage device has a cooling device for cooling said
electrochemical energy storage device, and wherein an actual
temperature value of the electrochemical energy storage device
is determined, and a desired temperature value of the
electrochemical energy storage device is set via a two-point
control system having an upper temperature limit and a lower
temperature limit, the method comprising the acts of:
defining the upper temperature limit of the two-point
control system and the lower temperature limit of the two-point
control system as a function of time during operation of the
electrochemical energy storage device or during activation of the
cooling device, wherein the upper temperature limit of the two-
point control system and the lower temperature limit of the two-
point control system are individually adjustable as a function of
energy storage device data and/or vehicle operating data;
activating the cooling device if the actual temperature
value reaches the upper temperature limit of the two-point
control system; and
deactivating the cooling device if the actual temperature
value reaches the lower temperature limit of the two-point
control system.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
2
Appeal 2016-005186
Application 13/918,203
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Iida et al. (US 2010/0324765 Al; Dec. 23, 2010)
(“Iida”). Final Act. 2-4.
Claims 11—18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Iida and Takatsuji et al. (US 2008/0012535 Al; Jan.
17, 2008) (“Takatsuji”). Final Act. 4—9.
Claim 19 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iida and Simonini et al. (US 8,600,598 B2; Dec. 3, 2013)
(“Simonini”). Final Act. 9—10.
Claim 20 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iida, Takatsuji, and Simonini. Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded
the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Claim 9
Appellants first argue the Examiner erred in finding Iida discloses
“defining the upper temperature limit” and “the lower temperature limit” of
a “two-point control system,” as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 5—8; Reply Br.
3
Appeal 2016-005186
Application 13/918,203
1—2. Specifically, Appellants argue Iada only discloses defining a single
“intermediate target temperature,” and varying that single target temperature
with time, rather an “upper” and “lower” limit. Second, Appellants argue
that even if Iida discloses defining an upper temperature limit and a lower
temperature limit, it does not disclose that those limits are “individually
adjustable” as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 3—6. On the
record before us, however, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of
error.
Regarding Appellants’ first argument, as the Examiner finds, Iada
discloses a system for maintaining the temperature of a battery in a hybrid
vehicle in a range “suitable for charging.” Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—5; Iada
Figs. 8, 11,1197, 105, 109-110. Iada discloses controlling the battery
temperature at a given time, as a function of predicted distance (or time) to
the next charging station, such that when the vehicle arrives at the charging
station, the battery temperature will be in a range “Tel” (lower temperature
limit for charging) to “Tcu” (upper temperature limit for charging) suitable
for charging the battery. Iada 1110. The range is illustrated in Iada Figures
8 and 11, reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2016-005186
Application 13/918,203
F1G.8 BATTERY TEMPERATURE
FIG.11
Figure 8 is a graph showing the “relation between battery temperature and
charging efficiency,” with the temperature range between “Tel” and “Tcu”
designated as “suitable for charging,” and the temperature “Tpeak”
indicating the peak charging temperature. Iida 126. Figure 11 is a graph
plotting an example of battery temperature transition when “control” is
carried out pursuant to the system in Iida. Id. at 129. As shown in Figure
5
Appeal 2016-005186
Application 13/918,203
11, the control system in Iida controls the battery temperature within a range
such that as the vehicle approaches (and arrives at) its charging destination
at time t2, the temperature will be below the “charging-enabled temperature
upper limit” Tcu and above the charging-enable temperature lower limit Tel.
Id. at 1110.
Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that Iida
discloses a temperature control system having an upper point and lower
point (two points), and defining those points as a function of time, as recited
in claim 9. Final Act. 3. Appellants emphasize Iida discloses only an
“intermediate target temperature,” and assert that such temperature only
corresponds to “one point” at a given time. App. Br. 6; Iida 1124. As the
Examiner finds, however, the intermediate target temperature is controlled
within a range; thus, the system still imposes an upper temperature limit
(Tcu) and lower temperature limit (Tel) as a function of time, as recited in
claim 9.2 * * * 6
We now turn to Appellants’ second argument. Appellants argue the
upper and lower temperature limits disclosed in Iida are not “individually
adjustable,” as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 3—6. Appellants
argue “individual” adjustment requires the ability to only adjust the upper
temperature limit while the lower limit remains fixed, or vice versa. Id.
Iida, according to Appellants, discloses only adjusting the intermediate
2 The Examiner additionally finds that even the “single” intermediate target
temperature in Iida must have some variance due to measurement
imprecisions, whether that imprecision is one degree or . 1 degree or some
other number, and thus the “target” inherently includes an upper and lower
limit (to turn the cooling system on or off) varying with time. Ans. 3^4.
Appellants have not demonstrated error in this finding.
6
Appeal 2016-005186
Application 13/918,203
target temperature, which necessarily would change both the upper and
lower limits (to operate the cooling system), such that the gradient between
them remains constant. Reply Br. 5. Appellants refer to the instant
Specification as supporting the proffered interpretation of “individually
adjustable.” Spec. 11 (“If only one of the two temperature limits is changed,
then the temperature hysteresis ... is changed.”).
As the Examiner concludes, however, it is irrelevant whether Iida
discloses one limit remaining fixed while the other is adjusted. Ans. 5. The
claim does not recite the temperature limits must necessarily remain
independent of one another, only that they are individually adjustable. See
In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(claim terms given their “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification”). Although the Specification includes an example of
one limit changing while the other remains constant, that example is not a
limitation in the claim. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d
1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (although we gave claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, “limitations from the
specification are not to be read into the claims”).
As the Examiner finds, each of the limits disclosed in Iida is
“adjustable” based on weather, traffic, and other factors, i.e., as the
intermediate target temperature varies. Ans. 5 (citing Iida 1 65); see also
Fig. 11. That the limits in Iada may adjust by the same amount, or the range
may not be able to expand or compress, is immaterial to claim 9 as written.
Ans. 5. We, therefore, discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the variances disclosed in Iida as
“individually adjustable” temperature limits. Ans. 5—6.
7
Appeal 2016-005186
Application 13/918,203
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 as
anticipated by Iida.
Remaining Claims
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 10
for the same reasons as claim 9, and erred in rejecting dependent claims 11—
20 because the additional references cited in rejecting those claims do not
cure the deficiencies regarding claim 9. App. Br. 10-12. Because we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9, see supra, these
arguments do not persuade us of error regarding the remaining claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 10, and the
obviousness rejections of claims 11—20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 9—20.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8