Ex Parte Seman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2017

13587107 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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.
P-US-TN-09740-A 8546
EXAMINER
TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/587,107 08/16/2012 Andrew E. Seman JR.
28268 7590 04/21/2017
THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199
TOWSON, MD 21286
04/21/2017 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 ANDREW E. SEMAN, JR., NATHAN CRUISE,
DANIEL J. WHITE, DAVID A. CARRIER, DANIEL C. BROTTO,
DANH T. TRINH, and FUGEN QIN
Appeal 2016-003083
Application 13/587,107
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants,1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final decision rejecting claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combined prior art of at least Perelle (US 5,677,613, issued
Oct. 14, 1997), Hiratsuka et al. (US 5,680,027, issued Oct. 21, 1997,
hereinafter “Hiratsuka”), and Huelss (US 7,085,338 B2, issued Aug. 1,
2006).2
1 The real party in interest is Black & Decker Inc. as stated by Appellants.
(Br. 3).
2 While the Examiner applies additional references to various dependent
claims (see, Final Act. 7—11), Appellants only present arguments directed to
claim 1 (generally Br. 9, 10).
Appeal 2016-003083
Application 13/587,107
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Independent claim 1 below is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added):
1. A method for monitoring the voltage of each of a
plurality of cells of a battery pack, said method comprising:
sequentially sensing a node voltage at each of a plurality
of nodes of a monitoring and balancing circuit, each node connecting
one of the cells to a respective one of a plurality of monitoring and
balancing (M&B) sub-circuits of the monitoring and balancing circuit;
receiving the node voltage from each of the M&B sub­
circuits at a measurement node common to each of the M&B sub­
circuits, where the common measurement node is coupled via a single
analog to digital converter (ADC) to a single input channel of a
battery control unit and a resistor is coupled between the measurement
node and ground;
monitoring a voltage potential for each of the plurality of
cells in a battery pack utilizing the single channel of a battery control
unit within the battery pack by receiving the node voltage signals
from each of the M&B sub-circuits during a discharge mode, at a first
sample rate, via a single discharge mode ADC coupled to a common
measurement node, the discharge mode ADC interposed between the
battery control unit and each of the M&B sub-circuits; and
receiving the node voltage signals from each of the M&B
sub-circuits during a charge mode, at a second sample rate that is
slower than the first sample rate, via a single charge mode analog to
digital converter (ADC) coupled to a common measurement node, the
charge mode ADC interposed between the battery control unit and
each of the M&B sub-circuits;
discontinuing current flow from battery pack when the
2
Appeal 2016-003083
Application 13/587,107
voltage potential of any cell is determined by the battery control unit
to be below a predetermined minimum voltage during discharge of the
battery pack; and
reducing the voltage potential stored in any one or more of
the cells when a voltage differential between the respective one or
more cells and any other one of the cells having a lesser voltage
potential is determined by the battery control unit to exceed a
predetermined maximum differential during charging of the battery
pack.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’
claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the
Final Action and the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Likewise, it is also well settled that a
reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264—65 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Appellants’ only argument is that Perelle does not teach or suggest
“sequentially sensing a node voltage” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 9, 10).
3
Appeal 2016-003083
Application 13/587,107
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner explains that, contrary to the Appellants’ position, Perelle does
indeed teach sequentially sensing a node voltage as recited in claim 1 (Ans.
2, 3). The Examiner states:
In response to Appellant's argument, Perelle teaches
sequentially activating various interfaces (5) connected in series
(Par (sic, Col.). 3, Lines 45-48). Each interface (5) taking into
account only the first control pulse it receives (Col.3, Lines 49-
57) and sending measurement signals successively (based on
the control pulses) to a measurement transducer (14) through a
common node (Fig.l). Therefore, given that the interfaces (5)
are sequentially activated and the common node precludes
gathering measurement signals at the same time, the node
voltage is sequentially sensed.
In response to Appellant's argument, Perelle teaches a
monitoring and balancing circuit (5) measuring a voltage across
an associated battery (2) (Col.2, Lines 5-7); and a clock signal
(17) successively (sequentially) activating the monitoring and
balancing circuits (5) through an activation means (18) found in
each monitoring and balancing circuit (5) (Col.3, Lines 45-57)
(Fig.l).
(Id. at 3).
Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s de facto
determination that one of ordinary skill would have readily inferred that
Perelle encompasses sequentially sensing a node voltage as recited in claim
1 (see, e.g., Ans. 2, 3; no responsive brief has been filed). KSR Int’l, 550
U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); Ball Aerosol & Specialty
Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
4
Appeal 2016-003083
Application 13/587,107
(Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must
take account of “the inferences and creative steps,” as well as routine steps,
that an ordinary artisan would employ.)).
Appellants have also not directed our attention to any persuasive
reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s claim
interpretation is unreasonable, nor to any portion of the Specification that
limits the definition of “sequentially sensing a node voltage” to exclude the
type of circuit operation found in Perelle as pointed out by the Examiner. In
re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (If
the specification does not provide a definition for claim terms, the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification is applied.).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons given above and presented
by the Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections are 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).
AFFIRMED
5