Ex Parte Guang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 3, 2012

10863920 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 3, 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.
10/863,920 06/09/2004 Huang Tai Guang 211552-00053 7428
27160 7590 01/04/2012
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
(C/O PATENT ADMINISTRATOR)
2900 K STREET NW, SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5118
EXAMINER
BOATENG, ALEXIS ASIEDUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2012 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 HUANG TAI GUANG, LI WEN HUA, and
ROBERT F. WENTINK
_____________

Appeal 2009-013119
Application 10/863,920
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013119
Application 10/863,920
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 9.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a battery charger to charge two or more
cells in parallel. See pages 5 and 6 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:

Claim 1. A multiple cell battery charger comprising:
a regulator for receiving a predetermined input voltage and supplying
a regulated supply of DC voltage at its output;
a plurality of charging circuits, each charging circuit configured to
charge an individual battery cell, said plurality of charging circuits
electrically coupled to each other in a parallel configuration forming a
parallel circuit, said parallel circuit being electrically coupled to said
regulator, each charging circuit comprising;
a pair of terminals for coupling to a battery cell;
a switching device serially coupled to said pair of battery terminals for
selectively connecting and disconnecting said pair of terminals from said
charging circuit forming a charging circuit; and
a microprocessor operatively coupled to said pair of terminals for
monitoring the voltage across the pair of terminals and selectively
controlling the switching device as a programmed function of said voltage
across said pair of terminals.

REFERNCES
VanDunk US 5,218,286 June 8, 1993 Filed Sep. 16, 1991
Densham US 6,741,066 May 25, 2004 Filed Sep. 21, 2001
Sawyers US 6,888,337 May 3, 2005 Filed Mar. 4, 2003
Appeal 2009-013119
Application 10/863,920
3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 6 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by VanDunk. Answer 3-4.
1

The Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over VanDunk in view of Densham. Answer 4-5.
The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over VanDunk in view of Sawyers. Answer 5-6.
The Examiner has rejected claim 9 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over VanDunk in view of Appellants’ admitted prior art.
Answer 6.
ISSUE
Anticipation rejection
Appellants argue on pages 3 through 5 of the Brief and pages 2 and 3
of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and
6 is in error.
2
These arguments present us with the following issue: Did the
Examiner err in finding VanDunk teaches a parallel configuration for
charging circuits as claimed?
Obviousness rejections
Appellants argue on pages 5 and 6 of the Brief that the additional
references cited do not teach the limitation missing from the anticipation
rejection of independent claim 1. We do not reach the issues presented by
these arguments because as discussed infra, we find that VanDunk teaches
all of the limitations of independent claim 1.

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
November 14, 2008.
Appeal 2009-013119
Application 10/863,920
4

ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding VanDunk teaches a parallel
configuration for charging circuits as claimed. Except as identified below,
we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief.
In response to the Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that the
constant current sources in Figure 1A [sic: 1B] are in parallel. Answer 6.
We concur. However the Examiner finds that they are in parallel because
they are all connected to ground at one terminal and to the analog-to-digital
converter at the other end. Answer 6. We disagree with this rationale by the
Examiner. As discussed by Appellants in the Briefs, this finding by the
Examiner does not show that the current sources are in parallel.
Nonetheless, as is clear from figure 1B, the constant current sources (items
24, 26, 28, and 30), which charge cells 20-23, are all connected to ground
and source power from a +20 volt power supply (item 34 shown in figure
2C). See VanDunk col. 3, ll. 30-39 and col. 1, ll. 41-44. As each of the
current sources shares a common connection to ground and a positive
voltage source, they are in parallel (we note that the power supply item 34
meets the claimed regulator). Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the

2
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Brief dated December 29, 2008,
and Reply Brief dated January 12, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013119
Application 10/863,920
5

Examiner’s finding that the current sources are in parallel, and we sustain
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 6. However, as our
findings rely upon different aspects of VanDunk’s disclosure we designate
our decision a new ground of rejection.
Obviousness rejections
As discussed supra, Appellants’ argue with respect to these rejections
that VanDunk does not teach the current sources in parallel and the
additional references do not make up for this deficiency. These arguments
have not persuaded us of error in the rejections as we find that VanDunk
does teach the current sources are in parallel. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 9 is affirmed.

This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review." 37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment
of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims
so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
Appeal 2009-013119
Application 10/863,920
6

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

dw