KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

2019005257 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 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.
15/112,451 07/19/2016 PETER LUERKENS 2014P00419WOUS 5447
24737 7590 07/01/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
TRISCHLER, JOHN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER LUERKENS, ALBERT GARCIA TORMO,
and BERND ACKERMANN

Appeal 2019-005257
Application 15/112,451
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–16.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).3

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42—namely, “KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.” (Application
Data Sheet filed July 19, 2016 at 6), which is also identified as the real party
in interest (Appeal Brief filed January 28, 2019 at 3).
2 See Appeal Br. 8–16; Reply Brief filed June 28, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) at 2–
11; Final Office Action entered August 30, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 3–9;
Examiner’s Answer entered May 3, 2019 (“Ans.”) at 3–21.
3 Both the Appeal Brief and the Examiner’s Answer address whether the
finality of the Final Office Action was premature (Appeal Br. 17–18; Ans.
21–25). This issue relates to a non-appealable matter that should have been
Appeal 2019-005257
Application 15/112,451

2
We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a device for controlling a
plurality of cells of a battery, a battery comprising such a device, an X-ray
source comprising such a battery, and a method for controlling a plurality of
cells of a battery (Specification filed July 19, 2016 (“Spec.”) at 2, l. 18–3, l.
4). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A device for controlling a plurality of cells of a battery, the
device comprising:
a battery control module, comprising a plurality of cell
control units, wherein each cell control unit is assigned to one
of the cells and is configured to change a charge balance of the
assigned cell and to measure at least one cell parameter of the
assigned cell; and
a main control module, which is configured to define a
preferred range of a state of-charge of the battery cells for a
charging-discharging-cycle, wherein the preferred range is
reduced compared to a full range, the main control module
further configured to provide a first group of selected cells, on
which the charging-discharging-cycle is performed including
a fully charged state within the full range, and a second group
of non-selected cells, on which the charging-discharging-cycle
is performed within the preferred range,
wherein the main control module is configured to calibrate
the preferred range utilizing the measure of the at least one cell
parameter of the assigned cell of the first group of selected cells
at the fully charged state.
(Appeal Br. 20 (emphasis added)).

raised by way of a timely-filed petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. See
M.P.E.P. § 1002.02(c), Item 3.a (Rev. 8.2017, Jan. 2018).
Appeal 2019-005257
Application 15/112,451

3
II. REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, and 4–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ishibashi et al.4 (“Ishibashi”) in view of Abe et al.5
(“Abe”) (Ans. 3–21; Final Act. 3–9).
III. DISCUSSION
1. Grouping of Claims
The Appellant relies on the same arguments for all claims on appeal,
focusing primarily on independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11–16).6 Therefore,
we decide this appeal on the basis of claim 1, which we designate as
representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 2 and 4–16
stand or fall with claim 1.
2. The Examiner’s Position
The Examiner finds that Ishibashi discloses every limitation recited in
claim 1 except it “fails to explicitly teach calibrating the preferred range
utilizing the measure of the at least one cell parameter” (Final Act. 3–5).
The Examiner finds, however, that “Abe . . . teaches calibrating [a] preferred
range utilizing the measure of . . . at least one cell parameter” and that Abe’s
device “provides reduced degradation and costs, and improved longevity”
(id. at 5). The Examiner concludes from these findings that “[i]t would have

4 US 2016/0200214 A1, published July 14, 2016.
5 US 2014/0239900 A1, published August 28, 2014.
6 The Appellant argues that the preambles recited in independent claims 1
and 13 constitute structural limitations that must be considered (Appeal Br.
9–11). The Examiner agrees but nonetheless maintains that these limitations
fail to impart patentability to the claimed subject matter over the prior art
(Ans. 4). Because the issue relating to the preambles is now moot, we do
not address it.
Appeal 2019-005257
Application 15/112,451

4
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishibashi
with Abe to provi[d]e improved longevity and reduced degradation and
costs” (id.).
3. The Appellant’s Contentions
The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s articulated reason for
combining Ishibashi with Abe (Appeal Br. 11–16). Rather, the Appellant’s
principal argument is that Ishibashi does not disclose the disputed “a battery
control module” limitations highlighted in reproduced claim 1 above
because “Ishibashi is directed to adjusting and balancing the charging and
input/output between two batteries”—not “a battery” (id. at 12–13). The
Appellant also argues that Ishibashi does not disclose the configuration
limitations recited for the “main control module” recited in claim 1 (id. at
13). According to the Appellant, “the secondary reference Abe does cure
[sic] the above identified deficiencies in Ishibashi” (id. at 16).
4. Opinion
The Appellant’s arguments fail to identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Ishibashi’s Figure 6 is reproduced, as follows:
Appeal 2019-005257
Application 15/112,451

5

Ishibashi’s Figure 6 above depicts a first battery module in a battery
apparatus that also contains a second battery module (not shown) that is
connected to the first battery module in parallel, wherein a maximum output
voltage of the first battery module is set to be larger than a maximum output
voltage of the second battery module and a use range of the first battery
module is set to differ from a use range of the second battery module
(Ishibashi ¶¶ 8, 17).
As the Examiner explains (Ans. 5–6), Ishibashi’s first battery module
(i.e., a battery module LFPM (lithium iron phosphate module)7), as shown in
Figure 6, includes a battery cell unit 102 formed of twelve cells LFP1–
LFP12, which are balanced by field effect transistors FET1–FET12,
respectively (Ishibashi ¶¶ 64, 69, 98). In this regard, the Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner’s finding that the “FETs allow measurements via
monitoring units 123 & 223 [via 121 & 221] and perform charge balance

7 See Ishibashi ¶ 37; Spec. 3, ll. 11–17.
Appeal 2019-005257
Application 15/112,451

6
[i.e., control or participate in controlling charge] as described in ¶[98] where
voltage is taken across the FETs” (compare Final Act. 4 (bracketed material
original) with Appeal Br. 11–16; see also Ishibashi ¶ 69). In addition,
Ishibashi teaches that “the voltages of the twelve pieces of battery cells LFP
of the battery module LFPM are monitored” and that “where a value of the
smallest voltage reaches, for example, 2.0 V among the voltages of the
twelve pieces of battery cells LFP, the battery control unit 101 performs
control to stop the discharge” (Ishibashi ¶ 109). Similarly, Ishibashi teaches
that “[m]onitoring of the voltages of the twelve pieces of battery cells LFP is
performed during charging” until the “maximum voltage among the voltages
of the twelve pieces of battery cells LFP has reached the terminating voltage
[e.g., 3.6 V]” (id. ¶ 125).
Thus, although we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner’s
reliance on Ishibashi’s Figure 4 showing a battery apparatus including
battery cell units in two different battery modules—as opposed to only one
as required by claim 1—was misplaced (Ans. 6), that error was harmless.
Here, the Examiner also relies on Ishibashi’s LFPM battery module as
shown in Figure 6, which shows controlling and monitoring twelve different
cell units in the same battery module, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 5;
Final Act. 4). The fact that Ishibashi’s battery apparatus also contains a
second battery module LIBM is immaterial because claim 1 uses the
transitional term “comprising” to define the claimed device and, therefore,
does not exclude Ishibashi’s second battery module LIBM.
The configuration language recited in claim 1 for the “main control
module” does not save claim 1 from the prior art’s reach because the
recitation “preferred range” can reasonably be interpreted to be any range
Appeal 2019-005257
Application 15/112,451

7
(e.g., 2.0–3.6 V) that is subsumed or within a “full range” (e.g., 0–3.6 V)
(compare Ishibashi ¶¶ 109, 125 with Spec. 4, l. 31–5, l. 17). In Ishibashi,
when a “smallest voltage” (emphasis added) among the monitored voltages
of the battery cells LFP1–LFP12 reaches 2.0 V, battery control unit 101
necessarily receives an indication to stop the discharge of the entire battery
module (Ishibashi ¶ 109). Consequently, charging is performed on all
battery cells (id. ¶ 125; Fig. 9)—i.e., charging is performed on some cells
(i.e., cells with voltages above 2.0 V) that were operating within a preferred
range and at least one cell (i.e., at least one cell with a voltage of 2.0 V) that
was operating within the full range. Thus, the configuration limitations for
the “main control module” fail to confer patentability to claim 1. In re
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]e
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation. As this court has discussed, this
methodology produces claims with only justifiable breadth.”).
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection as maintained
against claim 1 and all other rejected claims standing or falling therewith.

IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–16 103 Ishibashi, Abe 1, 2, 4–16

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