11685913 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

Ex Parte Mack

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2013

11685913 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

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. 11/685,913 03/14/2007 David Mack 81151158 5456 28395 7590 03/25/2013 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER OMAR, AHMED H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID MACK ____________________ Appeal 2010-010158 Application 11/685,913 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010158 Application 11/685,913 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 9-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-8 have been cancelled. We REVERSE. Introduction According to Appellant, the invention relates to a system and method to control power consumption in an accessory device in a vehicle by controlling operation of the accessory device based on current being charged to a battery (Abstract). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 21 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 21. A device for controlling a first controller to control an accessory device to consume power in a vehicle having an engine, a battery, and a power transmission unit that generates electrical power, the device comprising: a second controller configured to: determine an amount of current that is being charged to the battery or discharged from the battery; and control the first controller to enable the accessory device to consume the electrical power generated from the power transmission unit in response to determining that current is being charged to the battery. Appeal 2010-010158 Application 11/685,913 3 References Mototani US 5,247,205 Sep. 21, 1993 Seto US 5,507,153 Apr. 16, 1996 Tada US 6,688,121 B2 Feb. 10, 2004 Rejections (1) Claims 21 and 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seto and Tada. (2) Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seto, Tada, and Mototani. (3) Claims 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seto, Tada, and Mototani. ISSUES 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 9-27 Appellant asserts his invention is not obvious over Seto and Tada (App. Br. 4). Specifically, Appellant contends Seto does not teach “the first controller to enable the accessory device to consume the electrical power generated from the power transmission unit in response to determining that the current is being charged to the battery” (App. Br. 5)(emphasis in original). Appellant further maintains that Seto discloses “excess regenerative electric power which cannot be absorbed by the storage battery is absorbed by increasing the power consumption by the air conditioner” indicating Appeal 2010-010158 Application 11/685,913 4 operating a load from excess regenerative electric power when the battery is not being charged (Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Seto, col. 7, ll. 29-31)). Thus, Appellant argues, Seto teaches the battery is not being charged when the load is being powered by the excess regenerative electric power; therefore, Seto does not teach enabling the accessory device to consume electrical power from the transmission unit in response to determining current is being charged to the battery (App. Br. 5). Appellant additionally disputes the Examiner’s assertion that the second controller is the same as the power consumption indicator in Seto because the power consumption indicator is disclosed in Seto to calculate the difference between the regenerative electrical energy and the allowable regenerative electric power value of the storage battery (App. Br. 7). Appellant moreover points out that the combination of Seto and Tada fails to teach, suggest, or disclose “operating the accessory device in response to determining that power is delivered to the battery such that the accessory device consumes increased power from the electrical power generated by the power transmission unit,” as recited in claim 16 (App. Br. 13). Further, Appellant notes Tada fails to cure these deficiencies (App. Br. 7). Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Seto and Tada teaches “the first controller to enable the accessory device to consume the electric power generated from the power transmission unit in response to determining that current is being charged to the battery” as recited in representative claim 21? Appeal 2010-010158 Application 11/685,913 5 ANALYSIS The Examiner explains that the limitation, “operating the accessory device in response to that current being charged into the battery,” could reasonably be interpreted to mean power is provided to the accessory device during battery charging or after battery charging (Ans. 9). We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s interpretation. Claim 21 recites “in response to determining that the current is being charged to the battery.” We find a reasonable, but broad interpretation, in light of the Specification of this phrase is limited to the present tense in which the current is being charged at the same time as determining. Additionally, we find, as Appellant points out, the accessory device as recited in claim 21 is enabled to consume the electrical power generated from the power transmission unit while current is being charged to the battery (Reply Br. 2). The Examiner relies upon Seto to teach “the motor as a generator when decelerating the vehicle to generate electric power and the charge the storage battery” (Ans. 11-12 (quoting Seto, col. 3, ll. 19-33)). However, this passage in Seto suggests a condition when power is applied to the air conditioner (Seto, col. 3, ll. 30-33 (“[A]n electric power distribution means for distributing the excess regenerative electric power to the air conditioner based on the excess regenerative electrical energy.”)). We therefore find that Seto suggests the air conditioner is powered when there is a condition of excess regenerative electrical energy. Appeal 2010-010158 Application 11/685,913 6 The Examiner then interprets Seto to teach that when it is determined that the amount of regenerative electric energy is in excess of what the allowable amount of the battery is, then the excess power is sent to the air conditioner to be consumed while the allowable amount is applied to the battery (Ans. 12-13 (quoting Seto, col. 6, ll. 1-30)). However, Seto states “when . . . excess regenerative electric power which cannot be absorbed by the storage battery is generated, a power consumption indicating value . . . is outputted to the air conditioner power adjusting device” (col. 6, ll. 12-17). We find Seto teaches that, when the battery cannot absorb the excess regenerative electric power, it is output to the air conditioner. Indeed, Seto points out that, when the regenerative electric power is allowed for the storage battery, the regenerative electric power is recovered by the storage battery and not output to other devices (col. 6, ll. 4-11). Thus, we find Seto teaches the regenerative electric power is directed to either the air conditioner or the battery, but not both simultaneously. This is consistent with Appellant’s interpretation of Seto that the battery is not being charged when the load (i.e., the air conditioner) is being powered by the excess regenerative electric power (App. Br. 5). Therefore, we conclude Seto does not teach “enable the accessory device to consume the electrical power generated from the power transmission unit in response to determining that current is being charged to the battery,” as recited in representative claim 21. We further find Seto does not teach “operating the accessory device in response to determining that power is delivered to the battery,” as recited in claim 16. For similar reasons as those detailed above, the Examiner has not shown the Appeal 2010-010158 Application 11/685,913 7 combination of Seto, Tada, and Mototani teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claim 9. Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown the combination of Seto and Tada teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 9, 16, and 21. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments regarding these claims. We therefore find that the examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 9, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness. Dependent claims 10-15, 17-20, and 22-27 thus stand with their respective independent claims. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seto and Tada is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seto, Tada, and Mototani is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seto, Tada, and Mototani is reversed. REVERSED msc