Ex Parte Gale et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

12940274 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
12/940,274 11/05/2010 Allan Roy Gale 83161462 7131
28395 7590 05/02/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALLAN ROY GALE, PAUL THEODORE MOMCILOVICH, and
MICHAEL W. DEGNER
Appeal 2016-003412
Application 12/940,274
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal the Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1,
8, and 11, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 In our Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action appealed from, mailed
February 20, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief dated July 20, 2015
(“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief dated December
22, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief dated February 22, 2016 (“Reply
Br.”).
2 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003412
Application 12/940,274
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ disclosure relates to (a) a vehicle power system
comprising a traction battery and a battery charger; and (b) a method for
charging a traction battery of a vehicle that includes determining a voltage of
the traction battery, commanding an output voltage from a battery charger
equal to the voltage of the traction battery, and determining whether the
output voltage of the battery charger is approximately equal to the voltage of
the traction battery. Spec. 1; Abstract.
Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal
and are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief
(Claims App’x 1) (key disputed claim language italicized):
1. A vehicle power system comprising:
a traction battery;
a battery charger including an output, an input configured
to be electrically connected with an electrical power source
remote from the vehicle, and a capacitor electrically connected
across the output;
no more than two electrical contactors configured to
connect the traction battery to the output to enable current flow
from the battery charger to the traction battery; and
a controller configured to command, while the contactors
are open, an output voltage of the battery charger to be
approximately equal to a detected voltage of the traction
battery and to close the contactors in response to the output
voltage being approximately equal to the detected voltage of the
traction battery.
8. A method for charging a traction battery of a vehicle
comprising:
commanding an output voltage of a battery charger to be
equal to a detected voltage of the traction battery, and
2
Appeal 2016-003412
Application 12/940,274
closing no more than two contactors electrically connected
with the traction battery and battery charger in response to the
output voltage of the battery charger being approximately equal
to the detected voltage to enable current flow from the battery
charger to the traction battery.
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Kutkut US 6,664,762 B2 Dec. 16,2003
Komatsu US 2010/0038962 A1 Feb. 18, 2010
Mitsutani US 2010/0127665 A1 May 27, 2010
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Komatsu (“Rejection 1”). Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2.
2. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mitsutani, Kutkut, and Komatsu (“Rejection 2”).
Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 4.
OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner determines that Komatsu discloses all of the limitations
of claim 8 and anticipates the claim. Final Act. 2, 3 (citing Komatsu Tflf 86—
89, Fig.l). In particular, the Examiner finds that voltage VLB as depicted in
Figure 1 of Komatsu corresponds to the “output voltage of the battery
charger” recited in the claim. Id. at 3.
3
Appeal 2016-003412
Application 12/940,274
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 should be
reversed because Komatsu does not disclose the limitation “commanding an
output voltage of a battery charger to be equal to a detected voltage of the
traction battery.” App. Br. 3 (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants’ argument. To serve as an anticipatory
reference, “the reference must disclose each and every element of the
claimed invention.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). On
the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has established
by a preponderance of the evidence that Komatsu discloses the
“commanding an output voltage of a battery charger” limitation of claim 8.
The Examiner does not provide an adequate technical explanation or
direct us to sufficient evidence that Komatsu discloses this limitation. None
of the portions of Komatsu upon which the Examiner relies (see Komatsu ]Hf
86—90, Fig.l, Fig. 6) teach or suggest commanding an output voltage of a
battery charger to be equal to a detected voltage of the traction battery.
Rather, as Appellants explain at pages 3 and 4 of the Appeal Brief and page
2 of the Reply Brief and contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Komatsu
actually teaches that the output voltage VLB is associated with boost
converter 12B and originates with current supplied from battery BA—and
not battery charger 6. See Komatsu 77—89. Moreover, Figure 1 of
Komatsu also depicts output voltage VLB as being associated with boost
converter 12B and not as the output voltage of battery charger 6.
The Examiner’s comments at pages 2 through 4 of the Answer do not
meaningfully address Appellants’ principal argument that nothing in
Komatsu teaches or suggests commanding an output voltage of battery
charger 6 to be equal to a detected voltage of battery BB1. The Examiner’s
4
Appeal 2016-003412
Application 12/940,274
statement that “Komatsu teaches closing contactor (CONT4, SRI) in
response to the output voltage (VLB, supplied by converter 12B) of the
battery charger” (Ans. 4) is conclusory and, without more, insufficient to
satisfy the Examiner’s evidentiary burden in this regard. In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding “rejections . . . cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements”).
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner’s determination that
Komatsu discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Komatsu.
Rejection 2
Because claims 1 and 11 each recites essentially the same
“commanding an output voltage of a battery charger” limitation as claim 8,
and the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of these claims is based on the Komatsu
reference, and the foregoing deficiencies in the Examiner’s determination
regarding Komatsu’s teachings are not remedied by the Examiner’s findings
regarding the additional references or combination of references cited in
support of the second ground of rejection, we also reverse the Examiner’s
Rejection 2.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 8, and 11 are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5