Ex Parte Takatsuji et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2013

11769425 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/769,425 06/27/2007 Hideyasu Takatsuji MZD07322 4787
50488 7590 12/23/2013
ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE LLP
806 SW BROADWAY
SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205-3335
EXAMINER
BOATENG, ALEXIS ASIEDUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2013 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 HIDEYASU TAKATSUJI,
MICHIO YOSHINO, and SEIJI SADAHIRA
____________

Appeal 2011-001619
Application 11/769,425
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of thermally controlling an electric storage device,
comprising, in a control loop:

estimating an electric charge stored in said electric storage device; and

controlling a cooler to increase an amount of cooling medium
supplied to said electric storage device as said estimated electric charge
stored in said electric storage device increases.

Appeal 2011-001619
Application 11/769,425

2
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe) US 5,982,152 Nov. 9, 1999
Tsubone US 2006/0132100 A1 Jun. 22, 2006
Namba US 2006/0176022 A1 Aug. 10, 2006

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method of thermally
controlling an electric storage device, such as a battery. The method entails
estimating the electric charge that is stored in the device and increasing the
amount of a supplied cooling medium to the device as the estimated charge
increases. According to Appellants, "a system that increases the amount of
cooling supplied to an electric charge storage device as an estimated charge
stored in the electric storage device increases can improve charging
efficiency and reduce the possibility of electric charge storage device
degradation." (Prin. Br., sentence bridging pages 7-8).
Appealed claims 1-6, 8, and 10-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Namba in view of Watanabe. Claims 7,
9, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
the stated combination of references further in view of Tsubone.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is not supported by the applied prior
art. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejections.
Namba discloses a method of thermally controlling an electric storage
device but, as recognized by the Examiner, Namba does not disclose
increasing the amount of cooling medium supplied to the device as the
estimated electric charge stored in the device increases. The Examiner cites
Appeal 2011-001619
Application 11/769,425

3
Watanabe for increasing the amount of cooling medium supplied to an
electric storage device as the estimated charge stored in the device increases.
The Examiner, however, has not refuted Appellants' factually
supported position that Watanabe senses the temperature and state of charge
of the device to determine the charging efficiency, which charging efficiency
is the basis for determining whether or not to continue charging the battery,
and not for controlling a cooling device. As emphasized by Appellants,
Watanabe clearly teaches that whether or not the charging of the battery is
continued or stopped, it is the temperature of the battery that is sensed for
controlling whether the cooling fan is deactivated, or operated at a low or
high speed. Hence, the Examiner errs in stating that "Watanabe discloses
controlling a cooler to increase an amount of cooling medium supplied to
said electric storage device as said estimated electric charge stored in said
electric storage device increases" (Ans. 4, 3rd para.). The disclosure of
Watanabe cited by the Examiner, column 3, lines 26-36, states only that
ECU 32 controls the charger 28 and the cooling unit 26, but it does not state
that the amount of cooling medium supplied to the device increases as the
estimated electric charge in the device increases.
The Examiner's additional citation of Tsubone does not remedy the
deficiency of Watanabe discussed above.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner's rejections.
REVERSED

cam