Ex Parte GUO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2018

13538016 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/538,016 06/29/2012 Guangxi GUO
22852 7590 10/25/2018
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12186.0068-00000 4206
EXAMINER
TRISCHLER, JOHN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2018 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUANGXI GUO, YANG XU, SHULIN LIANG,
and JIANHUA ZHANG
Appeal2017-010153
Application 13/538,016
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed June 29, 2012 ("Spec."),
the Final Office Action entered October 5, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal
Brief filed March 3, 2017 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer entered May
11, 2017 ("Ans.").
2 The real party in interest is identified as Shenzhen BYD Auto R&D
Company Limited. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010153
Application 13/538,016
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a solar charger for charging a power battery in
an electric vehicle. Spec. 1: 11-12. According to the Specification, solar
chargers are conventionally used for low-power devices, such as cell phones,
but rarely used for devices and machines that require high power, such as
electric buses. Id. at 1: 18-21. Appellants' solar charger utilizes a charging
unit that boosts the voltage transformed from the solar energy to provide the
voltage to a power battery under the control of a control unit to charge the
power battery. Id. at 2:6-8. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief ( disputed limitations are
italicized):
1. A solar charger for charging a power battery,
compnsmg:
a photo-sensitive unit configured to detect light intensity;
a charging unit configured to receive a voltage
transformed from solar energy and to boost the voltage for
charging the power battery;
a switch unit coupled between the charging unit and the
power battery, and configured to disconnect the charging unit
from the power battery or connect the charging unit with the
power battery; and
a control unit coupled to each of the photo-sensitive unit,
the switch unit, and the charging unit, and configured to switch
on the charging unit and the switch unit when the light intensity
is higher than a first predetermined value to charge the power
battery,
wherein the control unit is further configured to monitor
a voltage of the power battery during charging of the power
battery by sampling at the output end of the solar charger, and
to switch off the charging unit and the switch unit when the
voltage of the power battery reaches a saturation value,
2
Appeal2017-010153
Application 13/538,016
wherein the control unit is further configured to
periodically switch on the switch unit at regular intervals to
detect a current voltage of the power battery after the voltage of
the power battery reaches a saturation value, and to switch on
the charging unit and the switch unit to charge the power
battery when the current voltage of the power battery is lower
than the saturation value and the light intensity detected by the
photo-sensitive unit is higher than the first predetermined
value.
Br. 29 (Claims Appendix). Claims 19 and 20 are the only other
independent claims in this appeal. Claims 19 and 20 are also directed
to a solar charger for charging a power battery and include the same
disputed limitations as claim 1, with claim 20 further specifying that
the charging unit is configured "to boost the voltage from no less than
80 V up to 570 V." Id. at 33-35.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner maintains and Appellants appeal the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wu3 in
view ofWard4 and McAndrews5 or Wu in view ofFrith6 and McAndrews as
evidenced by and in further view of secondary references. Final Act. 7-52;
Ans. 3-6; Br. 10-11.
3 CN 201023493, published February 20, 2008 (citations herein are to the
English language translation in the record).
4 US 2008/0143292 Al, published June 19, 2008.
5 US 6,476,583 B2, issued November 5, 2002.
6 CN 1728498, published February 1, 2006 ( citations herein are to the
English language translation in the record as an appendix to the Final Office
Action).
3
Appeal2017-010153
Application 13/538,016
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the rejections of claim 1 and assert that the
secondary references cited in the remaining rejections do not cure the
deficiencies of either Wu, Ward, and McAndrews or Wu, Firth, and
McAndrews. Br. 13-27. We select claim 1 as representative of the subject
matter before us for review on appeal and address the rejections argued
separately below. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1 over Wu, Ward, and McAndrews
There is no dispute that Wu and Ward each disclose the use of a solar
panel for charging a battery and that McAndrews discloses a back-up battery
system that uses primary DC power and valve-regulated lead acid (VRLA)
batteries to avoid interruption in service. Br. 12-14; Ans. 20. Appellants
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because McAndrews'
constant float charging and periodic boost charging ( e.g. every 24 hours)
while on float charge is used to maintain its back-up battery management
system at a float charge. Appellants argue that such "maintenance charging"
operates differently from the claimed conditions for periodically switching
on and off charging with a "control unit ... configured to periodically
switch on the switch unit at regular intervals" after the power battery reaches
a saturation value and to "switch on the charging unit and the switch unit to
charge the power battery" when the power battery is lower than the
saturation value and the light intensity detected by the photo-sensitive unit is
higher than a predetermined value. Br. 15-17 (citing McAndrews 6:43-7:6,
7: 15--4 3, claim 13). According to Appellants, the float charge mode of
McAndrews maintains a battery fully charged or at a full capacity requiring
a primary source of power supply. Id. at 21.
4
Appeal2017-010153
Application 13/538,016
Appellants also argue, inter alia, that the combination of Wu and
Ward with the maintenance charging of McAndrews would require Wu and
Ward to use McAndrews' primary power supply rather than power
transformed from solar energy, thus, vitiating the principle of operation of
Wu and Ward, which is to harvest solar energy and use solar energy for
charging a battery. Id. at 21-22.
The Examiner responds that BFC7 provides evidence that during
McAndrews' float charging, the battery charging is turned off when it
reaches a full charge, i.e. the high end ofMcAndrews' range, and that the
battery is charged in the normal charge mode when it goes below the range
value, i.e. the low end of the range. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that "the
battery is capable of being (i.e. permitted) on-line at all times, but is
submitted to a float charge during normal operation." Id. at 9. The
Examiner finds that "McAndrews only provides power to the battery under
certain conditions (Col L7-22)" and lack of power due to no solar charging
would qualify as such a non-charging condition. Id. at 20. The Examiner
also finds that BFC and Vigerst0l8 provide evidence that float charging can
protect the battery from overcharging damage. Id. at 7, 20.
The Examiner further responds that McAndrews was only used to
"meet[] the extra limitations required by the combination of Wu and Ward."
Id. at 8-9. Andrews is cited in the Final Office Action for disclosing
periodically switching on the switch unit at regular intervals to detect a
7 How does a float charger work? BatteryFloatChargers, published online
Oct. 1, 2002
(www.batteryfloatchargers.com/how_float_charger_works.htm).
8 US 4,422,031, issued Dec. 20, 1983.
5
Appeal2017-010153
Application 13/538,016
current voltage of the power battery after reaching a saturation voltage.
Final Act. 13. The Examiner further responds that "Ward was employed to
correct the boosting voltage limitations." Ans. 11.
Regarding the principles of operation of Wu and Ward being to use
solar energy for charging rather than a primary battery, the Examiner finds
that the float charging of McAndrews "would only need to be used during
sunlight hours with a high enough light intensity." Id. at 21.
Based on the cited record in this Appeal, we are persuaded by
Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that McAndrews as
evidenced by BFC discloses battery charging is turned off when it reaches a
full charge. There is no dispute in the record that McAndrews discloses
"maintenance charging" that includes both a float charging mode and a
periodic boost charge mode. Ans. 7-11; Br. 15-16; Final Act. 13;
McAndrews 3:8-11, 3:17-21, 7:15--43. The issue is whetherMcAndrews as
evidenced by BFC discloses that during the float charging, the battery
charging is turned off when it reaches a full charge as the Examiner finds
(Ans. 7). The Examiner directs us to column 7, lines 15-31, and claim 13 of
McAndrews and page 4 of BFC. Final Act. 13.
While the cited portion of McAndrews discloses battery
measurements being taken periodically, it is "while on float charge."
McAndrews 7: 19-21. McAndrews describes the boost power converter as
providing "a predetermined substantially constant voltage "[ d]uring the float
charging operation." McAndrews 5:66-6:2. The battery strings are
maintained on float charge and the float current output is increased to a
higher boost amount with a command signal from the controller.
McAndrews 6:12-15. Based on the record cited in this Appeal, McAndrews
6
Appeal2017-010153
Application 13/538,016
does not disclose, suggest, or provide any reason for configuring a controller
to periodically switch on the switch unit at regular intervals as required by
the claims.
The cited portion of BFC likewise provides no reason to periodically
switch on the switch unit at regular intervals as required by the claims. At
most, page 4 of BFC describes the operation of a float charger when a
battery voltage is at the float level as "maintain[ing] the charge current at
zero or a very minimal level until it senses that the battery output voltage has
fallen, and then resumes charging." BFC, 4. While BFC indicates that the
charge current can be zero during float charging, there is no teaching or
rationale provided in this Appeal record for configuring a controller to do so
as required by the claims.
For the above reasons, the preponderance of the evidence does not
support the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Wu,
Frith, and McAndrews as evidenced by BFC.
Claim 1 over Wu, Frith, and McAndrews
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over
the combination of Wu, Frith, and McAndrews because "Frith fails to
disclose or teach the claimed charging unit configured to 'receive a voltage
transformed from solar energy and to boost the voltage for charging the
power battery,' as recited" in the claim. Br. 25. According to Appellants,
Frith only discloses regulating the output voltage of a rechargeable battery or
a power supply to a load, such as an MP3 player, and not a boost converter.
Id. at 26. Appellants also argue that McAndrews fails to disclose or suggest
the features of claim 1 as discussed above in connection with the rejection of
claim 1 over the combination of Wu, Ward, and McAndrews. Id. at 27.
7
Appeal2017-010153
Application 13/538,016
The Examiner responds that Frith discloses a boost regulator which a
person having ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a boost
converter. Ans. 23 ( citing Frith 18-19). The Examiner further finds that
Frith discloses regulating the output of a non-battery voltage supply, which
includes a solar cell. Id. at 22-23 (citing Frith 18-19). Thus, the Examiner
finds that "Frith teaches boosting power obtained from a solar panel/cell."
Id. at 24.
The Examiner's findings that a boost regulator would have been
known as a boost converter and that Frith teaches boosting power obtained
from a non-battery voltage supply such as a solar cell are not rebutted by
Appellants and are supported by the record. Frith 18-19.
The Examiner's findings regarding McAndrews as evidenced by BFC,
however, are not supported by the preponderance of the evidence for the
reasons discussed above. Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellants that
the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of
Wu, Frith, and McAndrews.
Claims 3, 4, and 6-21
Appellants contend that the secondary reference cited by the
Examiner in the rejection of independent claim 19 does not cure the
deficiencies of Wu, Ward, and McAndrews as discussed above in
connection with claim 1. Br. 23. Appellants also assert that the rejections of
independent claims 19 and 20 as well as dependent claims 3, 4, 6-18, and 21
should be reversed for the same reasons discussed above in connection with
claim 1. Id. at 24.
Because each of the Examiner's rejections is based on McAndrews
disclosing the limitation of periodically switching on the switch unit at
8
Appeal2017-010153
Application 13/538,016
regular intervals and switching on the charging unit and the switch unit
under certain conditions as required by each of the independent claims, we
likewise are persuaded of error by the Examiner in the rejection of claims 3,
4, and 6-21 for the same reasons discussed above regarding the rejections of
independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
9