MOORE, Jeremy et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 24, 2020

15155765 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 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.
15/155,765 05/16/2016 Jeremy MOORE 83644473 7571
28395 7590 04/24/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
CLEMMONS, STEVE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2020 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 JEREMY MOORE and MARK J. FERREL
Appeal 2019-002189
Application 15/155,765
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, 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 1–14. 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. 1.
Appeal 2019-002189
Application 15/155,765
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method for supplying power
to an engine of a hybrid electric vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
an electric machine configured to transfer power between
an engine and traction battery;
an auxiliary battery configured to be selectively
electrically connected with the traction battery; and
a controller programmed to, after receiving an engine start
request,
start the engine by activating the electric machine
using both batteries responsive to available traction
battery power being below a threshold, and
start the engine using the traction battery, but not
the auxiliary battery, otherwise.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Zolman US 8,381,852 B2 Feb. 26, 2013
Wyatt US 2015/0202984 A1 July 23, 2015
Neet US 2015/0377203 A1 Dec. 31, 2015
Ouchi US 2016/0244050 A1 Aug. 25, 2016
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
1. Claims 1–5, 7–10, and 12–14 as unpatentable over Neet in view
of Wyatt. Final Act. 2.
2. Claim 6 as unpatentable over Neet in view of Wyatt and
Zolman. Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2019-002189
Application 15/155,765
3
3. Claim 11 as unpatentable over Neet in view of Wyatt and
Ouchi. Final Act. 9.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Neet in View of Wyatt
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7–10, and 12–14 as unpatentable
over Neet in view of Wyatt. Final Act. 2. As to independent claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Neet discloses a system substantially as claimed, but
finds that Neet “does not expressly teach a traction battery power threshold
for determination of battery utilization.” Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner
relies on Wyatt for the disclosure of a controller programmed to start the
engine using one or both of the batteries based on whether the second battery
power is “below a threshold,” e.g., approximately 20% state of charge. Final
Act. 3, citing Wyatt ¶ 922; see also Ans. 4 (“Wyatt teaches that a LTO/NMC
(traction) battery is utilized along with a lead-acid (auxiliary) battery, if the
traction battery is below 20% state of charge (threshold).”).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have “utilize[d] a battery configuration, as taught
in Wyatt, to take advantage of the voltage characteristics of the two batteries
(specifically the ability of battery 32 to more efficiently capture regenerative

2 The relevant portion of Wyatt states:
the LTO/NMC battery 32 may supply power to the electrical system 66
by itself until it nears a voltage threshold of approximately 12.9 volts,
at which point, the lead-acid battery 30 or both the lead-acid battery 30
and the LTO/NMC battery 32 may supply power to the electrical
system 66. In other words, the lead-acid battery may begin outputting
electrical power once the LTO/NMC battery 32 decreases to
approximately 20% state of charge.
Wyatt ¶ 92.
Appeal 2019-002189
Application 15/155,765
4
power).” Final Act. 3. We agree with the Examiner and address the
Appellant’s arguments below.
The Appellant argues that “Wyatt operates the batteries based on
voltage difference of the batteries relative one another, not to ‘start the
engine by activating the electric machine using both batteries responsive to
available traction battery power being below a threshold’ as recited in
claim 1,” and that “Wyatt is entirely silent as to starting the engine.” Appeal
Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 1 (arguing that the Examiner “fails to identify how
Neet and Wyatt disclose or suggest starting an engine using a pair of
batteries when available power of one of the batteries is below a threshold
and starting the engine using the one of the batteries, otherwise.”).
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive in view of Wyatt’s
disclosure of the use of the second LTO/NMC battery to supply power to the
electrical system until a threshold is reached, and in view of the other
disclosures in Wyatt. The Appellant appears to focus on the fact that
paragraph 92 of Wyatt does not specifically refer to “start[ing] the engine”
as recited by claim 1. However, the Appellant overlooks the remaining
disclosure of Wyatt, which broadly discloses that “whether to utilize the
second battery 32 to crank3 the internal combustion engine may be based at
least in part on a minimum state of charge for the second battery.” Wyatt
¶ 118. More pertinently, Wyatt explicitly discloses:
In other words, whether to use the lead-acid battery 30, the
second battery 32, or both to crank the internal combustion
engine may be determined based on the second battery state of
charge when the engine is to be cranked. More specifically,

3 The term “crank” is used in Wyatt to mean to start the engine. Wyatt ¶ 8
(“to start (e.g., crank) an internal combustion engine.”); see also Wyatt
¶¶ 58, 75, 77.
Appeal 2019-002189
Application 15/155,765
5
when the second battery state of charge is greater than a
minimum state of charge, the second battery 32 may crank the
internal combustion engine 18 by itself, when the second
battery 32 is depleted the lead-acid battery 30 may crank the
internal combustion engine 18 by itself, and when the second
battery is not depleted but less than the minimum state of
charge both the lead-acid battery 30 and the second battery 32
may crank the internal combustion engine together.
Wyatt ¶ 159 (emphasis added).
Therefore, contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, Wyatt specifically
discloses the use of both batteries to start the engine when the second battery
is below a threshold level, and using the second battery to start the engine
when the second battery is above the threshold level, as required by claim
1.4
The Appellant also argues that the rejection does not establish why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
Neet and Wyatt in the manner suggested by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 7–8.
The Appellant appears to argue that the reasoning set forth of “tak[ing]
advantage of the voltage characteristics of the two batteries (specifically the
ability of battery 32 to more efficiently capture regenerative power)” (Final
Act. 3), would not have provided motivation to a person of ordinary skill to
combine the teachings of Neet and Wyatt. According to the Appellant, “the
recitations of claim l . . . bear no relation to efficient capture of regenerative

4 We note that we have considered Wyatt in its entirety, and pointing to
other portions of the same reference used by the Examiner is not viewed as
being a new ground of rejection. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Meinhardt, 392 F.2d 273, 280 (CCPA 1968)
(it is not a new ground of rejection to cite additional portions of the same
reference relied upon by the Examiner).
Appeal 2019-002189
Application 15/155,765
6
power, as in Wyatt, nor to regenerative braking operation of the alternator-
starter, as in Neet.” Reply Br. 2.
However, the reason for combining the references need not be
explicitly found in the references, or be the same as the reason that
motivated the Appellant’s invention. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418–19 (2007) (“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.”);
KSR, 550 U.S. 420 (“any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at
the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed.”); In re Kemps, 97 F.3d
1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996). What is required is “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
The Examiner has provided sufficient reasoning, that is, to take
advantage of the second battery’s ability to “more efficiently capture
regenerative power.” Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 6 (“the ability of [the
second] battery 32 to more efficiently capture regenerative power, would
improve the system and justify modification.”). In other words, initially
using the battery that can more efficiently capture regenerative power until a
threshold level before using the other battery that is less efficient in
capturing regenerative power in conjunction, would allow for more of the
regenerative power to be captured to replenish the power used. This
articulated reasoning is supported by rational underpinnings, and is
sufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Appeal 2019-002189
Application 15/155,765
7
In our view, the claimed invention is merely a predicable variation that
improves one device using a known control technique in a predictable way.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
The Appellant also responds that “no engine cranking in Neet is done
based on available power of one of the batteries,” or using a single battery.
Reply Br. 1. However, the Appellant unpersuasively argues Neet
individually, whereas the Examiner has conceded that Neet does not disclose
the limitations at issue, but has relied upon Wyatt to cure this deficiency to
conclude that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Appellant further responds that “the disclosure of Wyatt simply
relates to using both batteries to supply power to crank start the engine.”
Reply Br. 2. However, this assertion is incorrect because, as discussed
above, Wyatt discloses various control strategies for utilizing its two
different batteries, including in the manner recited by the limitations at issue.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we are not persuaded
by the Appellant’s arguments and affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. The Appellant relies on the same arguments in support
of patentability of independent claims 4 and 12, and further relies on
dependency to assert patentability of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, 13,
and 14. Appeal Br. 9. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims as well.

Appeal 2019-002189
Application 15/155,765
8
Rejection 2: Neet in View of Wyatt and Zolman
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 6 as unpatentable over Neet in
view of Wyatt and Zolman. Final Act. 8. The Appellant does not present
any separate arguments directed to claim 6, but instead, merely relies on its
dependency on claim 4 for patentability. Appeal Br. 9. Therefore, this
rejection is affirmed.

Rejection 3: Neet in View of Wyatt and Ouchi
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 11 as unpatentable over Neet in
view of Wyatt and Ouchi. Final Act. 9. The Appellant does not present any
separate arguments directed to claim 11, but instead, merely relies on its
dependency on claim 4 for patentability. Appeal Br. 9. Therefore, this
rejection is also affirmed.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. More specifically,
1. The rejection of claims 1–5, 7–10, and 12–14 as unpatentable
over Neet in view of Wyatt is affirmed;
2. The rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Neet in view of
Wyatt and Zolman is affirmed; and
3. The rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Neet in view of
Wyatt and Ouchi is affirmed.

Appeal 2019-002189
Application 15/155,765
9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–10,
12–14
103 Neet, Wyatt 1–5, 7–10,
12–14

6 103 Neet, Wyatt,
Zolman
6
11 103 Neet, Wyatt, Ouchi 11
Overall
Outcome
1–14
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