Ex Parte Syed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13028860 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

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.
13/028,860 02/16/2011 Asif A. Syed P014204-BAT-CHE 9567
65798 7590 08/31/2016
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
ALKAFAWI, EMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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 ASIF A. SYED, BRIAN J. KOCH, SASCHA SCHAEFER,
and ANDREAS KOENEKAMP
____________

Appeal 2015-000935
Application 13/028,860
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–3, 5–15, and 18–20 of
Application 13/028,860. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as General Motors. App. Br.
3.
Appeal 2015-000935
Application 13/028,860
2
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to measuring the state of charge
in a vehicle battery pack. Specification (“Spec.”) ¶ 2. In particular, the
claimed invention seeks to improve the accuracy of state of charge (“SOC”)
measurements by setting bands of state of charge and applying a band-
scaling factor to voltage-based state of charge. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for calculating a reported state of charge of a
battery pack, said method comprising:
defining a plurality of state of charge bands for the
battery pack, where each of the state of charge bands represents
a range of state of charge;
measuring open circuit voltage across the battery pack,
temperature in the battery pack, and current flow into or out of
the battery pack;
estimating a voltage-based state of charge based on the
open circuit voltage and the temperature, and estimating, using
a microprocessor, a current-based state of charge based on the
current flow;
determining a current state of charge band as the state of
charge band in which the battery pack currently exists;
checking applicability criteria to determine whether
voltage-based state of charge scaling is applicable, where the
applicability criteria include comparing the current flow to a
minimum current threshold and comparing a deviation between
the voltage-based state of charge and the current-based state of
charge to a minimum deviation threshold;
establishing a weight factor for the voltage-based state of
charge based on the current state of charge band and the
applicability criteria: and
Appeal 2015-000935
Application 13/028,860
3
calculating the reported state of charge based on the
weight factor, the voltage-based state of charge, and the
current-based state of charge.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Ichikawa US 2010/0131217 A1 May 27, 2010
Takahashi et al. US 2012/0065824 A1 Mar. 15, 2012
(“Takahashi”)
Melichar US 8,427,109 B2 Apr. 23, 2013

THE REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5–15, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Takahashi, Melichar, and Ichikawa.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 10 as a group, focusing on
common limitations, and argue that independent claim 14 is not obvious for
similar reasons. App. Br. 4–21. We choose claim 1 as representative.
Appellants do not present distinct arguments for separate patentability of the
dependent claims. App. Br. 21–23. Therefore, all dependent claims stand or
fall with claim 1.
Having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify
reversible error in the rejection. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons set
forth in the Final Office Action mailed January 6, 2014 (“Final Act.”) and
the Answer dated August 14, 2014 (“Ans.”). We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appeal 2015-000935
Application 13/028,860
4
The Examiner finds that Takahashi describes every limitation recited
in claim 1 except it does not expressly describe “a minimum current
threshold,” and does not disclose “a weight factor.” Final Act. 2–6. The
Examiner further finds, however, that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that Takahashi’s SOC1L in Figure 8 relates to a
lower current value which reads on the “minimum current threshold” (Final
Act. 4, citing Takahashi ¶¶ 10, 104–106, Figs. 8 and 11), that Melichar
further teaches comparing current flow to a minimum current threshold as
part of determining whether voltage-based state of charge scaling is
applicable (Final Act. 5), and that Ichikawa teaches a weight factor as part of
a calculation to estimate state of charge. Id. at 6 (citing Ichikawa ¶¶ 12, 18).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner
claimed by the Appellants because Melichar and Takahashi both use voltage
and current measurements and mode recognition to calculate an estimate of
SOC, and Ichikawa’s teaching of a weighting coefficient would have
improved the accuracy of Takahashi’s method. Id. at 6–7.
Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness. The applied references are directed to a
common purpose of improving the accuracy of SOC estimation in a vehicle
battery, and recognize conditions when open circuit voltage or current flow
measurement can provide a more reliable SOC estimation, just as
Appellants’ Specification describes. Spec. ¶¶ 3–5, 14–21. As stated in KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), “when a patent ‘simply
arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” See also In re Kerkhoven, 626
Appeal 2015-000935
Application 13/028,860
5
F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (“[iIt is prima facie obvious to combine two
compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the
same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for
the very same purpose.”)
Moreover, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s reasoning for
combining the references, but rather argue against the rejection by focusing
on slight differences between the method recited in claim 1 and specific
steps of the methods described in the applied references. App. Br. 13–20.
For example, Appellants argue that Melichar does not teach “comparing the
current flow to a minimum current threshold” because Melichar does not
mention a “minimum current threshold” and describes determining “‘reset
voltage’” rather than comparing to a minimum current threshold. App. Br.
14–15. The Examiner responds that Takahashi is the primary reference
relied upon for teaching comparison with a threshold and explains how
Takahashi implicitly teaches the comparison, as described supra, and further
correctly finds that Melichar’s method as shown in the flowchart of Figure 7,
step 284, uses a current threshold comparison. Ans. 3–8; KSR, 550 U.S. at
418 (The prior art references must be evaluated, taking into account, inter
alia, “the background knowledge possessed by a persona having ordinary
skill in the art,” and “the inference and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). We have also considered
Appellants’ remaining arguments and find for the reasons stated by the
Examiner that none warrant reversal of the appealed rejection, particularly
Appellants’ arguments against the references individually. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)(arguments against references individually
cannot overcome a rejection based on a combination of the references).
Appeal 2015-000935
Application 13/028,860
6
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 1–3, 5–15, and 18–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED