Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

2019003758 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2020)

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.
15/476,206 03/31/2017 Kimberley King 83811466 7099
28395 7590 06/02/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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 KIMBERLEY KING, BIJAL PATEL, VIET QUOC TO,
PHILIP MICHAEL GONZALES, and JOSEPHINE S. LEE
Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
Technology Center 3600

Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 23, 25–27, 29, and 33–35. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method for a vehicle power
system. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter (emphasis added):
21. A vehicle power system comprising:
an external 110V power outlet, an inverter, a DC/DC
converter, and a traction battery operatively arranged with one
another; and
a controller programmed to,
responsive to a command for power at the power
outlet and a state of charge of the traction battery
exceeding a threshold, command the traction battery to
power the DC/DC converter to provide power via the
inverter and power outlet, and
alter the threshold based on a stand time or
temperature associated with the traction battery.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Chiku et al. US 3,886,442 May 27, 1975
Vanderslice, Jr. et al. US 5,362,942 Nov. 8, 1994
Dougherty et al. US 5,488,283 Jan. 30, 1996
Ikeda et al. US 5,595,064 Jan. 21, 1997
Pritchard US 6,087,808 July 11, 2000
Chen US 6,181,103 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Nakane et al. US 6,191,554 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
Khan et al. US 2006/0151219 A1 July 13, 2006
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects various claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as follows:
1. Claims 21, 23, 25–27, 29, and 33–35 as unpatentable over Khan
in view of Ikeda. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
3
2. Claims 21, 23, 27, and 29 as unpatentable over Kahn in view of
Ikeda and further in view of Pritchard, Chen, or Nakane. Final Act. 4.
3. Claims 21, 25, 26, and 33–35 as unpatentable over Kahn in
view of Ikeda and further in view of Chiku, Vanderslice, or Dougherty.
Final Act. 5.
OPINION
Each of the Examiner’s rejections is based on combination of Kahn
and Ikeda. The Examiner finds that Khan discloses a vehicle power system
and method of operation substantially as claimed, and concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Khan in view of Ikeda such that the
controller provides accessory power based on the battery’s state of charge
exceeding a threshold value “for the purpose of preventing excessive battery
drain via the accessory . . . [and] to retain sufficient capacity to operate the
vehicle and/or start an engine of the vehicle at a later time, thus ensuring the
vehicle remains operable.” See, e.g., Final Act. 2–3, citing Ikeda col. 3, ll.
1–7, col. 17, ll. 28–45. The Appellant does not dispute these findings or this
initial conclusion.
The Examiner concedes that Ikeda fails to specifically teach altering
the threshold specifically based on battery stand time or temperature as
recited in independent claims 21, 27, and 33. Final Act. 3. However, as
discussed below, the Examiner finds that it was well-known in the art that
stand time or temperature impacts battery capacity and performance, and
concludes that it would have been obvious to alter the threshold accordingly.
The Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s conclusion. We specifically
address Rejections 2 and 3 infra.

Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
4
Rejection 2: Khan in view of Ikeda and Pritchard, Chen, or Nakane
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 23, 27, and 29 as unpatentable over
Kahn in view of Ikeda and further in view of Pritchard, Chen, or Nakane.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner specifically relies on these tertiary references as
evidence establishing that it was well-known in the art that “a battery
capacity decreases with increasing stand time or disuse time.” Final Act. 4–
5, citing Pritchard col. 1, ll. 54–62; Chen col. 1, ll. 40–47; Nakane col. 2, ll.
38–45. The Appellant does not dispute these findings.
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have increased (i.e.,
alter) the threshold as stand time or disuse time increases, in view of the
knowledge that batteries have “reduced power delivery capacity with
increased stand time or disuse time.” Final Act. 4–5.
The Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion, arguing that a
prima facie case of obviousness has not been shown because “although the
art teaches state of charge thresholds, it does not teach that such thresholds
should be altered as a function of battery stand time.” Appeal Br. 3; Reply
Br. 2 (the Examiner “cannot find art that discloses altering the claimed
threshold based on a stand time.”). According to the Appellant, the
Examiner’s conclusion is based on impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 3.
The Examiner responds that, in addition to the uncontested evidence
establishing that it was well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art
that battery capacity decreases with increasing stand time, “the ordinary
practitioner in the electric and/or hybrid vehicle arts is possessed of
substantial skill,” has ordinary creativity, and is not an automaton, such that
the claimed invention would have been obvious. Ans. 6, 8. We agree with
the Examiner. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A
Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
5
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.”).
Given the knowledge, skill, and creativity of those of ordinary skill,
we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious and within the
skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the controller to
alter the threshold based on increasing stand time. In that regard, we
observe that the initial threshold would have been initially determined and
selected by one of ordinary skill based on operating characteristics of the
vehicle and capacity of its traction battery. As noted above, the cited tertiary
references establish that battery capacity is reduced with increasing stand
time, and thus, “provide evidence that these characteristics of battery
function would be well identified as needing consideration for fully
successful vehicle operation.” Ans. 6. As the Examiner further explains, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have “recognize[d] that a vehicular
arrangement or operating method as described by Kahn et al. and Ikeda et al.
does not accommodate for the change in a battery’s operating characteristics
based on a stand or disuse time . . . which are demonstrated-known
characteristics of batteries.” Ans. 8–9. Therefore, upon appreciating that the
battery’s capacity characteristics upon which the threshold was initially
selected changes as the battery stand time increases such that the threshold
would not be accurate, a person of ordinary skill and creativity would have
found it obvious to alter the threshold based on such stand time to make the
vehicle power system more accurate by accounting for such changes in the
battery’s capacity characteristics over time.
Although the Appellant focuses on an assertion that no prior art
reference has been relied on by the Examiner that explicitly alters the
threshold, the Examiner is correct that “there is no requirement that the prior
Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
6
art of record explicitly teach a combination,” and that motivation to modify a
reference may be “implicit in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art.” Ans. 5–6. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19 (“the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim” and “obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis
on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued
patents”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a
whole, rather than expressly stated in the references); Dystar Textilfarben
GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (implicit motivation to combine exists when the
improvement is technology-independent and the combination of references
results in a product that is more desirable, for example, because it is
stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more
efficient).
The Appellant further argues that there lacks “recognition in the art of
record” that “the state of charge threshold of Ikeda, for example, may not
work as intended given the changes in battery capacity that occur with
increased stand time.” Appeal Br. 3. According to the Appellant, “nothing
in the art suggests that those of ordinary skill had recognized such
problem/solution related to thresholds and battery capacities.” Reply Br. 2;
see also Appeal Br. 3 (the rejection “depends on a key presumption
regarding recognition of a problem for which the examiner offers nothing
more than unsupported implicit argument”).
However, this line of argument is unpersuasive because, regardless of
whether the threshold of Ikeda would work as intended or not, we agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
7
art to improve the accuracy of the vehicle power system by accounting for
the fact that a battery capacity is reduced with increasing stand time as
established by the art of record. Optimization and enhancing accuracy of the
operation of a system is not limited to making the system merely functional.
The Appellant further argues that if it was well known that battery
capacity decreases with increasing standing time, “why are there absolutely
no references that suggest altering a state of charge threshold based on stand
time?” Appeal Br. 3. Notwithstanding the fact that the Appellant cannot
state with certainty that there are “absolutely no references” in the art, the
Appellant is again requiring explicit disclosure in a prior art reference rather
than considering the art of record in view of the knowledge, skill, and
creativity of those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, in view of the above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 21 and 27. The Appellant relies on dependency on an
independent claim for patentability of the remaining dependent claims.
Appeal Br. 4. Accordingly, the rejection of dependent claims 23 and 29 is
affirmed as well.

Rejection 3: Khan in view of Ikeda and Chiku, Vanderslice, or Dougherty
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 25, 26, and 33–35 as unpatentable
over Kahn in view of Ikeda and further in view of Chiku, Vanderslice, or
Dougherty, the Examiner relying on these tertiary references as evidence
establishing that it was well-known in the art that “battery capacity increases
with increasing temperature.” Final Act. 5, citing Chiku Fig. 7, col. 10, ll.
27–53; Vanderslice Fig. 6, col. 3, ll. 6–8; Dougherty col. 2, ll. 5–6. The
Appellant does not dispute these findings of the Examiner.
Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
8
Based on the above findings, the Examiner similarly concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have reduced
(i.e., alter) the threshold as temperature increases, in view of the knowledge
that batteries have “a greater power delivery capacity with increased
temperature.” Final Act. 5–6.
The Appellant disputes this conclusion relying on substantively the
same arguments addressed above relative to Rejection 2, stating that “[t]he
above arguments are applicable to all the examiner rejections and art of
record, including those directed to claims 21 and 33 concerning changes in
temperature rather than changes in stand time.” Appeal Br. 4.
Therefore, having found the Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive as to
Rejection 2, we likewise affirm Rejection 3.

Rejection 1: Khan in view of Ikeda
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 23, 25–27, 29, and 33–35 as
unpatentable over Khan in view of Ikeda. Final Act. 2. However,
Rejections 2 and 3 addressed above affirm a rejection of each of these claims
based on Khan and Ikeda in view of other tertiary references. Accordingly,
we need not reach this rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 23, 25–27, 29, and 33–35 is
affirmed. More specifically,
1. Rejection of claims 21, 23, 25–27, 29, and 33–35 as
unpatentable over Khan in view of Ikeda is not reached.
Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
9
2. Rejection of claims 21, 23, 27, and 29 as unpatentable over
Kahn in view of Ikeda and further in view of Pritchard, Chen, or Nakane is
affirmed.
3. Rejection of claims 21, 25, 26, and 33–35 as unpatentable over
Kahn in view of Ikeda and further in view of Chiku, Vanderslice, or
Dougherty is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 23, 25–
27, 29, 33–
35
103(a)2 Khan, Ikeda
21, 23, 27,
29
103(a) Kahn, Ikeda,
Pritchard, Chen,
Nakane
21, 23, 27,
29

21, 25, 26,
33–35
103(a) Kahn, Ikeda,
Chiku,
Vanderslice,
Dougherty
21, 25, 26,
33–35

Overall
Outcome
21, 23, 25–
27, 29, 33–
35

2 The rejection of claims 21, 23, 25–27, 29, and 33–35 as unpatentable over
Kahn and Ikeda is duplicative and is not reached here, as alternate rejections
of each of these claims (relying on the same base combination) have been
affirmed.
Appeal 2019-003758
Application 15/476,206
10
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED