Loubier, Christopher

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 7, 2020

2019004592 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 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.
13/589,341 08/20/2012 Christopher Loubier 3717243-00008 1092
24573 7590 07/07/2020
K&L Gates LLP-Chicago
P.O. Box 1135
Chicago, IL 60690
EXAMINER
AMRANY, ADI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2020 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):
USpatentmail@klgates.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER LOUBIER
Appeal 2019-004592
Application 13/589,341
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 9–13 and 23–37.3
We REVERSE.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed January 8, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated July 17, 2018
(“Final”); Appeal Brief filed February 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer dated March 22, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed May 22, 2019
(“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as I Squared
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-004592
Application 13/589,341
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a power distribution system. The system
includes a master cell and a plurality of power cells. Spec. ¶ 22. The master
cell functions as the primary governing element and the power cells provide
the points of power distribution in the system. Id. A single power cell can
provide numerous protected power MOSFET output nodes. Id.
Claim 28, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
28. A power distribution system for a vehicle, the power
distribution system comprising:
a master cell including a plurality of inputs, each input
configured to be placed in electrical communication with a
vehicle switch;
a plurality of power cells, each power cell including a
primary power input for receiving input power and a plurality
of nodes, each node configured to be placed in electrical
communication with a vehicle load;
a network communication bus including a cable or
wireless connection between the master cell and the power cells
within the vehicle, the cable or wireless connection being the
sole mode of control input to the power cells; and
wherein the master cell is configured to assign at least
some of the plurality of inputs each to a different at least one of
the nodes, so that corresponding vehicle switches are in
selective electrical communication via the cable or wireless
connection with corresponding vehicle loads.
Appeal Br. 21–22 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-004592
Application 13/589,341
3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Name Reference Date
Darty US 5,752,047 May 12, 1998
Hattori US 7,049,938 B2 May 23, 2006
Schaper US 2004/0199297 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 9–13, 23, 24, and 28–37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hattori.
2. Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hattori in view of Darty.
3. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hattori in view of Schaper.
OPINION
The Appellant contends that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that Hattori anticipates claims 9–13, 23, 24, and 28–37, because Hattori
discloses a system having only a single power cell (electric equipment
control unit 16), whereas independent claims 28, 32, and 35 require “a
plurality of power cells.” Appeal Br. 17–18.
The Examiner cites Hattori column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 2 as
evidence that Hattori’s system includes a plurality of power cells. Ans. 9.
The cited disclosure reads as follows: “an electric equipment control unit
being provided between the electric power supply line and each electric
equipment to detect the control signal containing the ID transmitted through
the electric power supply line and to control each electric equipment.”
Appeal 2019-004592
Application 13/589,341
4
Hattori 1:65–2:2. The Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s
characterization of Hattori’s disclosure as describing a plurality of vehicle
loads and “a one-to-one matchup . . . between power cells (16) and loads
(14).” Reply Br. 5 (quoting Ans. 9). The Appellant contends that, properly
interpreted, the cited disclosure supports its argument that Hattori describes
a single electric control unit between the electric power supply line and all
electric equipment. Id. at 5–6.
As further evidence that Hattori’s system includes a plurality of power
cells, the Examiner cites Hattori Figures 1–2, which are block diagrams
showing schematic configurations of Hattori’s intra-vehicle LAN system.
See Hattori 2:47–52. The Examiner explains that
[i]f Hattori intended for one power cell (16) to be included for
all equipment (14), then figures 1–2 would show network cable
12 terminating at the power cell (16), [and] [t]here would be no
need for the network cable 12 to continue off to the right or for
each power cell to have its own ID.
Ans. 9; see also id. at 10 (“Hattori clearly shows that one load (14) and its
power cell (16) are connected to the cable (12). The cable extends off to the
right of the figure, which indicates to one skilled in the art that other loads
and power cells would be connected there.”). The Appellant argues that “in
each of the figures of Hattori only a single control unit 16 or 46 is shown or
described,” and, therefore, the Examiner’s finding “is completely
speculative.” Reply Br. 6.
The Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of anticipation. In the present case, the Examiner has not cited
persuasive evidence to support a finding that the ordinary artisan would have
Appeal 2019-004592
Application 13/589,341
5
understood Hattori’s Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrations of network cable 12
as a description of a connection between the master cell (master computer
22) and additional power cells (i.e., more than one electric equipment
control unit 16). Further, the Examiner’s and the Appellant’s respective
interpretations of Hattori column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 2, demonstrate
Hattori’s disclosure is ambiguous. “It is well established that an anticipation
rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous reference.” In re Turlay, 304
F.2d 893, 899 (CCPA 1962).
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9–13,
23, 24, and 28–37 as anticipated by Hattori. Because the obviousness
rejections of dependent claims 24–27 likewise are based on the Examiner’s
unsupported finding that Hattori discloses a plurality of power cells (see
Final 12–13), we do not sustain these grounds of rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9–13, 23,
24, 28–37
102(b) Hattori 9–13, 23,
24, 28–37
24, 25 103(a) Hattori, Darty 24, 25
26, 27 103(a) Hattori, Darty 26, 27
Overall
Outcome:
9–13, 23–
37

REVERSED