Ex Parte SOO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 12, 2018

14607323 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/607,323 01/28/2015
28395 7590 10/16/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
BRIAN THOMAS SOO
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.
83482733 9589
EXAMINER
VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN THOMAS SOO,
WALTER JOSEPH ORTMANN, MARVIN PAUL KRASKA, and
MICHAELD. WALLACE 1
Appeal 2018-001135
Application 14/607,323
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001135
Application 14/607,323
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A vehicle comprising:
a powertrain including an electric machine and engine;
a traction battery; and
a controller programmed to, responsive to a state of charge
of the traction battery being less than a threshold while the
traction battery is powering a device external to the vehicle,
operate the powertrain to provide current to the traction battery
at a rate that depends on an ambient temperature and not a power
load of the device.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Beeson (US 2010/0314181 Al, pub. Dec. 16,
2010) and Kohn (US 2010/0072954 Al, pub. Mar. 25, 2010).
II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Beeson, Kohn, and Barske (US 2006/0266568 Al, pub.
Nov. 30, 2006).
III. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Beeson, Kohn, and Arai (US 5,880,533, iss. Mar. 9, 1999).
IV. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Beeson, Kohn, and Sheldrake (US 4,310,793, iss. Jan. 12,
1982).
2
Appeal 2018-001135
Application 14/607,323
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Beeson
discloses, in relevant part, "a controller (30 and/or 46) which is arranged to
control a charge rate of power applied to charge the battery responsive to the
battery state of charge being less than a threshold ( e.g., fully charged, note
i10029)." Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that
Beeson does not teach that the controller charge rate is adjusted
based on the load of the device. As such, it is understood that the
reference lacks such an adjustment. In view of the lack of
teaching of such a control, the ordinary practitioner would
reasonably be led to understand that the charge rate of the
controller is not based on the power load of the device.
Id. Alternatively, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
to not provide the control of the charge rate as being based on the
load of the device since (1) the reference fails to teach such a
control, and (2) a very reasonable and well-understood way to
provide a controller which does not perform a particular feature
is, indeed, to not provide that feature.
Id. at 2-3. The Examiner also finds that "Beeson fails to specifically teach
that a charge rate is controlled 'dependent upon' an ambient and/or battery
temperature," and relies on Kohn for teaching such a feature. Id. at 3. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Beeson to
control charge rate based on ambient temperature, as taught by Kohn, "for
the purpose of optimizing the charging rate to the battery characteristics,
beneficially providing optimized efficiency in charging and preventing
thermal-based damage associated with over-temperature operation." Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to make a sufficient showing
that Beeson inherently charges the battery at a rate that is not based on the
3
Appeal 2018-001135
Application 14/607,323
power load of the device. See Appeal Br. 2-3; Reply Br. 2. According to
Appellant, "[t]he charge rate at issue is normally based on the power load
drawn so that energy taken from the battery can be replaced in a proportional
fashion," and, "[ t ]hus, Beeson would not mention such because patent
applications are not required to discuss that which is already known."
Appeal Br. 2-3. We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellant does not
offer any evidence to support the position that battery charge rate normally
is based on the power load of a device that is powered by the battery. In this
regard, Appellant's assertion amounts to nothing more than attorney
argument unsupported by evidence and, thus, is entitled to little, if any,
weight. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (An attorney's arguments in a
brief cannot take the place of evidence.). Moreover, even assuming
arguendo that it was known to charge a battery at a rate that is based on the
power load of a device, such a fact does not establish that Beeson
necessarily uses such a charge rate.
In addition, Appellant's argument only addresses the Examiner's
initial finding that Beeson's silence conveys that the battery charge rate is
not based on the power load of the device and does not specifically address,
much less contest, the Examiner's alternative position that it would have
been obvious not to control Beeson's battery charge rate based on the device
power load. See Final Act. 2-3. Namely, Appellant does not address the
Examiner's articulated reasoning or explain why this reasoning lacks
rational underpinnings.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's determination that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been
4
Appeal 2018-001135
Application 14/607,323
obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of its
dependent claims 2, 4, and 5, for which Appellant relies on the same
argument (see Appeal Br. 3) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Beeson and Kohn.
R(d ections II-IV
In contesting the rejections of dependent claims 3, 6, and 7, Appellant
relies solely on the argument presented for base claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant's argument fails to apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 1, and, likewise, fails to apprise us of error in
the rejections of claims 3, 6, and 7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections
of claims 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5