Ex Parte Gorbold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2017

13467735 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 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.
13/467,735 05/09/2012 Jeremy Gorbold 3867.254US1 3896
21186 7590 11/03/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, ARUN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEREMY GORBOLD, COLIN McINTOSH,
niall McDermott, katherine o’riordan, Robert parle,
and JAMES STEGEN
Appeal 2017-001380
Application 13/467,7351
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JULIA HEANEY, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1,17, and 20, and rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2—16, 18, 19, and 21.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
1 ANALOG DEVICES, INC. is stated to be the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001380
Application 13/467,735
BACKGROUND
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and
appears below (with key limitations italicized):
1. A battery monitor, having a plurality of channel inputs,
comprising:
a measurement system to generate measurement
information from voltages present on the channel inputs,
a plurality of channel drivers, each associated with a
respective channel input that, when activated, alters a voltage
appearing on the respective channel input, and
a controller to cause the measurement system to activate a
selected channel driver and, at a predetermined time after the
selected channel driver is activated, generate second
measurement information for the channel input associated with
the selected channel driver.
Claims App’x. 1.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated over Stewart (US 5,422,558, issued June 6, 1995). Final Act. 2—
4. Claims 2—16, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stewart and various other references. Id. at 4—11.
OPINION
The Anticipation Rejection
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. If
that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shifts to the applicant.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner maps the recited “plurality of
channel drivers” to Stewart’s battery controller 80. Final Act. 2—3. As
2
Appeal 2017-001380
Application 13/467,735
correctly noted by Appellants, and not disputed by the Examiner (Ans.
generally), the Examiner does not “explicitly identify which element of the
Stewart system meets the ‘plurality of channel inputs’.” App. Br. 3. See
also id. at 4. Appellants contend that “by identifying the battery controllers
80 with the recited ‘plurality of channel drivers,’ it appears that the
Examiner considers the input line to each battery controller 80 to correspond
to the plurality of channel inputs” because of the recited association of the
drivers and inputs. Id. at 3. The Examiner does not dispute this assertion.
Ans. generally.
Appellants urge that if such mapping is correct, then Stewart would
also have to disclose that “battery controller 80 (regarded by the Examiner
as meeting the channel drivers) alters a voltage on the line that goes through
sensor 42 and into [the] battery controller” in order to anticipate claim 1. Id.
The issue we must decide to determine the propriety of this rejection,
therefore, is whether the Examiner has established that Stewart’s battery
controller 80, when activated, “alters a voltage appearing on” its own input.
For the reasons expressed by Appellants and below, we answer this question
in the negative and reverse the rejection.
First, we observe that the Examiner, in the final rejection, does not
explain with any specificity how Stewart evinces the limitation in dispute.
Final Act. 2—3. Rather, the Examiner asserts that Stewart discloses the
limitation and cites to several passages of Stewart for support {id.) and states
that the sensor “is [fed] back to [b]attery controller (80) which controls
element 40 wherein voltage is altered based on the state of element 40” {id.
at 12-13).
Appellants contend, however, that “battery controller 80 accepts the
output of sensor 42, which measures the power output of battery 30, in order
3
Appeal 2017-001380
Application 13/467,735
to determine when to actuate switch 40 to connect one terminal of battery 30
to voltage line 14 of bus 10.” App. Br. 3^4. Appellants point to Stewart’s
disclosure requiring battery controller 80 to partially rely on sensor 42 ’s
output in order to properly determine when the battery’s connection to
power bus 10 is made {id. at 4, citing Stewart 4:4—6), and contend that the
Examiner’s interpretation of Stewart is erroneous because “controller 80
would be altering the very sensor values on which it depends to accurately
and efficiently connect battery 30 to bus 10.” Id. The Examiner fails to
address these arguments in the Answer, and merely asserts that the limitation
is disclosed because Stewart’s battery 30 is disconnected from the bus 10
when recharging, thus “effectively altering the total voltage output of’ the
bus. Ans. 2—3 (emphasis added). The Examiner fails to explain, however,
how altering Stewart’s voltage output of bus 10 “alters a voltage on the
respective channel input” as required by claim 1.
Thus, on this record, the Examiner has failed to establish how Stewart
discloses the limitation requiring the channel drivers to alter a voltage
appearing on the respective channel input with which they are associated,
and we reverse the rejection of claim 1 for this reason.
Additionally, Appellants challenge (App. Br. 5) the Examiner’s
finding that Stewart discloses the limitation requiring “a controller to cause
the measurement system to activate a selected channel driver and, at a
predetermined time after the selected channel driver is activated, generate
second measurement information for the channel input associated with the
selected channel driver.” Final Act. 3, 13; Ans. 3^4.
We are persuaded that the Examiner also reversibly erred in making
this finding for the reasons expressed at page 5 of the Appeal Brief.
Specifically, on this record, the Examiner fails to point to any disclosure that
4
Appeal 2017-001380
Application 13/467,735
conveys that it is the measurement system that activates the selected channel
driver, and also fails to identify how the measurement system is controlled to
wait a predetermined time after such activation to “generate second
measurement information for the channel input associated with the selected
channel driver.” Rather, the Examiner points to Stewart 6:48—54, which
discusses how battery controller 180 (corresponding to “the channel driver”)
makes diagnostic or recharging decisions at predetermined times. Such
disclosure, however, does not evince Stewart’s sensor (corresponding to “the
measurement system”) waiting a predetermined amount of time before
generating “second measurement information for the channel input
associated with the selected channel driver.” Thus, the Examiner failed to
meet the required burden for this additional reason.
In view of the above, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is reversed.
The anticipation rejection of independent claims 17 and 20, each containing
similar limitations as claim 1, is reversed for the same reasons.
The Obviousness Rejections
Because each of the obviousness rejections before us relies on the
erroneous findings outlined above with respect to Stewart’s disclosure,2 we
reverse these rejections as well.
SUMMARY
The rejections of claims 1—21 are reversed.
REVERSED
2 The Examiner’s findings regarding the references other than Stewart do not
address the deficiencies in Stewart. Final Act. 5—11.
5