Ex Parte King et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 1, 2009

11012442 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT DEAN KING, DONGWOO SONG, and
LEMBIT SALASOO
____________

Appeal 2009-001320
Application 11/012,442
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 June 1, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8, 12-15, 21, 50-53, and 56-62. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-001320
Application 11/012,442

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is a control circuit for controlling a low
side power source and a high side power source in a hybrid vehicle (Spec.
¶[0005]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A control circuit comprising:

a circuit adapted to determine a state of charge of a high side
power source using a sensed output current to provide a
variable gain signal based on the state of charge;

a circuit configured to provide a fixed gain signal based on the
current of the high side power source; and

a circuit configured to combine the variable gain signal and the
fixed gain signal to create a power command.

REFERENCE
King US 6,331,365 B12 Dec. 18, 2001
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 21, 50-53, and 56-62
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of King.
The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of King.
Appellants contend that King does not teach or suggest a variable gain
signal based on a state of charge (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-3). Further,

2 The Examiner cited US patent 5,710,699 to King in the Evidence Relied
Upon section of the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2). However, the rejections
are based on US patent 6,331,365 to King (Ans. 3). It is obvious that the
reference to King in the Evidence Relied Upon section is an error and that
US patent 6,331,365 to King is what is being relied upon by the Examiner.
2
Appeal 2009-001320
Application 11/012,442

Appellants contend that the algorithms in King “can not be characterized as
‘variable gain circuitry’” (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3).

ISSUE
Did Appellants establish that the Examiner erred in finding that
King’s algorithms teach a variable gain signal based on a state of charge?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants’ invention teaches a control circuit 30 (Fig. 2) that
includes a variable gain circuit 32 adapted to determine a state of charge
(SOC) of an energy storage system source current 34 in a high side power
source 14 (Spec. ¶[0028]).
2. The variable gain circuit of Appellants’ invention provides the
necessary gain input to generate an appropriate power command that is
provided to a traction boost converter (Spec. ¶[0029]).
3. King teaches a battery power control system including a hybrid
power source controller 54 (Fig. 5B) that monitors the voltage at a high
power density battery 48 and the voltage at a high energy density battery 24.
The variables obtained are used to control a boost converter 34 so as to
regulate the amount of power transferred from the battery to a DC link 14
(col. 5, ll. 61-65).
4. King obtains an average power generated by a battery 48 by
monitoring a battery terminal voltage and a battery current output at a sensor
86 (Fig. 5A; col. 6, ll. 31-33). Multiplier 88 receives the average power and
provides a power signal to a summing junction 92 (Fig. 5B; col. 6, ll. 33-36).
The average power is also applied to battery state of charge algorithms 94
3
Appeal 2009-001320
Application 11/012,442

and 96 (Fig. 5B; col. 6, ll. 37-38). Summing junction 92 sums the signal
from the state of charge algorithms and the power signal and outputs a
signal, used to control the charge cycles for the battery, to control the boost
converter 34 (Fig. 5A; col. 6, ll. 37-43).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The
inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what
subject matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is
described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465
U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’ something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.” While all elements of the claimed invention
must appear in a single reference, additional references may be used to
interpret the anticipating reference and to shed light on its meaning,
particularly to those skilled in the art at the relevant time. See
Studiengesellschaft Kohle m.b.H. v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-727
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest
reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
4
Appeal 2009-001320
Application 11/012,442

ANALYSIS
Anticipation
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 21, 50-53, and 56-62
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of King. Appellants
address this rejection with respect to independent claims 1, 12, 50, and 59,
with the claims dependent thereon standing or falling therewith (App. Br. 9.
12). Because independent claims 1, 12, 50, and 59 contain substantially the
same features and Appellants provide substantially the same arguments for
each (Reply Br. 2), this rejection is addressed with respect to representative
claim 1.
The Examiner finds that King teaches all the elements of Appellants’
claimed invention (Ans. 3). Particularly, the Examiner finds that the state of
charge algorithms 92, 94 of King act as variable gain circuitry to provide a
variable gain signal based on a state of charge (Ans. 8).
Appellants contend that in King, although a state of charge input is
combined with an average power signal to form a control signal, the control
signal is fundamentally different from the power command recited in
Appellants’ claims (App. Br. 10). Appellants also contend that King “never
teaches that such algorithms vary any gain” (Reply Br. 3).
It is noted that Appellants’ Figure 2 shows a variable gain circuit 32
that includes a variable gain circuit 40 and a state of charge power limit
function 42, the output of the variable gain circuit 32 being input to a
summation circuit 44 (Spec. ¶ [0028]). This signal is used to generate an
appropriate power command 46 that is provided to a traction boost converter
(Spec. ¶ [0029]) as is does King (FF4). Further, Appellants’ claims do not
recite a “variable gain circuit” but rather, a circuit adapted to determine a
5
Appeal 2009-001320
Application 11/012,442

state of charge using a sensed output current to provide a variable gain signal
based on the state of charge. The algorithms in King do just that. As found
by the Examiner, King’s algorithms are “variable” and provide “gain” (Ans.
8-9). Appellants merely state that this is a “strained definition that clearly
contradicts the meaning of variable gain circuitry which would be
understood by those skilled in the art” (Reply Br. 4). Appellants also state
that there is no reason why King’s variable gain algorithms might not
produce results similar to “fixed gain circuitry” (Reply Br. 4). The
Examiner’s definition of variable gain, however, is not inconsistent with
paragraphs [0028] and [0029] of Appellants’ Specification and what is
claimed. Just because the algorithms of King might produce a fixed gain
does not mean that the Examiner is incorrect, as these algorithms do produce
a variable result as set forth above.
Thus, since King reads on all the elements of claim 1, King anticipates
claim 1 along with claims 2-6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 21, 50-53, and 56-62.
Obviousness
The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of King.
Appellants contend that claims 13 and 14 depend from claim 12 and
are allowable because King “does not contain every element recited therein”
(App. Br. 14). For the reasons set forth above, claims 13 and 14 are obvious
over King.

CONCLUSION
Appellants did not establish that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 21, 50-53, and 56-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
6
Appeal 2009-001320
Application 11/012,442

Appellants have also not established that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 12-15, 21, 50-53,
and 56-62 is affirmed.
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

gvw

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
C/O FLETCHER YODER
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
7