Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2013

11437350 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 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.
11/437,350 05/19/2006 Ligong Wang 16356.994 (DC-10573) 1289
27683 7590 07/10/2013
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
PIGGUSH, AARON C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/10/2013 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 LIGONG WANG and JOHN J. BREEN
____________

Appeal 2011-000449
Application 11/437,350
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRUCE A. WINSOR, DAVID C. McKONE and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-21. Claims 6 and 14 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates generally to charging rechargeable
batteries. See generally Spec.¶ [0001]. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A charge system for charging battery packs, the charge system
comprising:

Appeal 2011-000449
Application 11/437,350

2

an alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC) adapter operable to
detect a presence of an AC input and provide an AC available signal
indicative of the presence of the AC input; and

a controller operable to receive the AC available signal, communicate
with a battery control circuit in a selected one of the battery packs by
writing, via a Systems Management Bus (SMBus), a value at a predefined
memory location within the selected one of the battery packs, read back, via
the SMBus, from the predefined memory location to determine whether
there is a match for the value and, in response to determining the match,
activate a charge switch in the selected one of the battery packs to provide
the AC available signal to the selected one of the battery packs such that the
charging of the selected one of the battery packs is controlled via SMBus
communication between the controller and the battery control circuit in the
selected one of the battery packs.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cummings (US 5,955,867, issued Sept.
21, 1999) and Patino (US 2005/0184704 A1, published Aug. 25, 2005).
Ans. 3-7.
1

ISSUES
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Cummings
and Patino collectively would have taught or suggested:

1
Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed May 12,
2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 2, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed September 13, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-000449
Application 11/437,350

3

(1) a controller that writes “via a Systems Management Bus (SMBus),
a value at a predefined memory location within the selected one of the
battery packs,” as recited in claim 1?
(2) a controller that reads “via the SMBus, from the predefined
memory location,” as recited in claim 1?
(3) a controller that determines “whether there is a match for the
value,” as recited in claim 1?
(4) a controller that activates “a charge switch in the selected one of
the battery packs to provide the AC available signal to the selected one of
the battery packs” to charge the battery pack, as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants summarize the disputed limitations from claim 1 as a
controller that: (1) writes a value to memory in a battery pack; (2) reads the
value; (3) determines if the value is matched; and, (4) if the value is
matched, activates a switch in the battery to charge the battery. App. Br. 5.
Though the summary does not precisely track the claim language,
2
the
arguments made do not focus on any of the omitted claim language.
Therefore, we will analyze the rejection of claim 1 using Appellants’
summary.
The Examiner finds Cummings teaches a control circuit or controller.
Ans. 4 (citing Cummings, col. 7, ll. 50-54, Fig. 2, element 118). The control
circuit is found by the Examiner to charge a battery pack. Id. (citing
Cummings, col. 6, ll. 35-51). A memory device with read capability is also

2
The precise disputed claim language is presented under the Issues heading.
Limitations (1)-(4) under Issues correspond to the summary (1)-(4).
Appeal 2011-000449
Application 11/437,350

4

taught by Cummings. Id. (citing Cummings, col. 6, ll. 51-65, Fig. 2,
elements 225 and 245, Fig. 4). Patino is used by the Examiner to teach
writing and reading back a value from a memory of a battery pack. Ans. 4
(citing Patino, ¶¶ [0004], [0008], and [0025-0032], Fig. 2, element 232 in
Fig. 2). The read value is used to activate a charge switch. Id. The
Examiner also finds that memory devices, as taught in both Cummings and
Patino, read and write data or “values” as claimed. Ans. 4, 7-8. The
Examiner concludes it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to include writing to and reading from the memory of the battery
pack in the device of Cummings, as did Patino, to control the charging of the
battery pack. Ans. 5.
Appellants admit Cummings discloses a battery with memory and a
controller that activates a battery charge switch. App. Br. 6. However,
Appellants contend it does not follow that that controller uses the memory to
activate the battery charge switch. Id. As to Patino, Appellants
acknowledge the reference teaches selectively reading or writing to a
memory device. App. Br. 8. Further, Appellants admit Patino teaches a
battery charger that reads information stored in the memory device and uses
this information for purposes of ensuring that the battery is efficiently and
properly charged. Id. Appellants dispute Patino teaches determining
“whether there is a match for the value and, in response to determining the
match, activate[s] a charge switch in the selected one of the battery packs.”
Id. Ultimately, Appellants conclude Patino has “no disclosure of writing a
value to the memory, reading a value back, determining if there is a match
for the written value, and activating the charge switch if there a match is
determined,” as claim 1 recites. Id.
Appeal 2011-000449
Application 11/437,350

5

On the record before us we do not find error in the Examiner’s
findings on the disputed limitations. We agree with the Examiner’s findings
that a memory device, virtually by definition
3
, implicates a read/write
function. Ans. 4. Cummings teaches two battery packs, A and B, each of
which has memory 225 and 245. Cummings, Fig. 2. Similarly, the battery
system 202 of Patino has a memory device 249. Patino, Fig. 2. Each
reference necessarily includes a read/write function as a result of having
memory. Appellants do not persuasively address the Examiner’s finding.
The fact that the references disclose writing and reading does not
necessarily require that a “value at a predetermined location” be written and
then read as claim 1 recites. Appellants make no argument regarding any
special meaning for “value.” “Any arguments or authorities not included in
the brief or a reply brief filed pursuant to [37 C.F.R.] § 41.41 will be refused
consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2007). In reviewing the record, both the Examiner and
Appellants proceeded on that basis that the “value” that is written and read is
data which indicates whether or not the battery pack requires charging.
Further, the “predetermined location” is, per the claim language and
Specification, “within the selected . . . one of the battery packs.” Spec. ¶
[0025]. Beyond the memory being “in” the battery, no argument is made
that the predefined location has any significance.
The disputed limitation that a determination be made that the written
value “matches” is not argued persuasively and does not overcome the

3
See, e.g., the definition of “access.” “The act of reading data from or
writing data to memory.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Ed., p. 16,
(2002).
Appeal 2011-000449
Application 11/437,350

6

Examiner’s finding. Simply stated, the Examiner finds the references teach
that if a “value” was read indicating a “selected one” of the battery packs
needed charging, a switch is activated to charge the battery. Ans. 4, 8.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Independent claims 12, 16, and 21 are argued collectively with claim 1.
App. Br. 8. The rejection of claims 12, 16, and 21 is therefore sustained.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-11 depend from claim 1. Dependent claims 13
and 15 depend from claim 12. Dependent claims 17-20 depend from claim
16. Claims 2-5, 7-11, 13, 15, and 17-20 are not separately argued apart from
the independent claims and the rejection of those claims is sustained.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1-5, 7-13, and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-21 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis