Audi AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2021

2021002634 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2021)

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.
16/088,394 09/25/2018 Werner WILDING 4557.0890001 9421
26111 7590 10/28/2021
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, TONYA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2021 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):
e-office@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WERNER WILDING and JÖRG MICHAEL
____________

Appeal 2021-002634
Application 16/088,394
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 14–33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a data processing unit, which has a first interface for
exchanging first information with at least one motor vehicle and a second

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Audi AG
(Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2021-002634
Application 16/088,394

2

interface for exchanging second information with a plurality of charging
stations for charging the energy storage device of a motor vehicle (Spec. 1,
Title).
Claim 14 is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
14. A data processing unit, comprising:
a memory;
at least one processor coupled to the memory;
a first data interface for exchanging first information with
a plurality of motor vehicles; and
a second data interface for exchanging second
information with a plurality of charging stations for charging an
energy storage device of a motor vehicle of the plurality of
motor vehicles,
wherein the data processing unit is configured to:
determine, from the motor vehicle, a point in time
for charging-start of the energy storage device using at
least one predefinable parameter;
receive, from the motor vehicle, the first
information, including a charge status at the point in time
of the charging-start of the energy storage device and a
maximum charging power of the motor vehicle;
receive, from a charging station of the plurality of
charging stations, the second information, including an
available charging power of the charging station at the
point in time of the charging-start;
create a strategy for assignment of the motor
vehicle to the charging station; and
assign the motor vehicle to the charging station,
wherein the at least one predefinable parameter is
configured for the assignment of the motor vehicle to the
charging station such that a greatest possible utilization
of the available charging power of the charging station is
achieved at the point in time of the charging-start.

Appeal 2021-002634
Application 16/088,394

3

THE REJECTION
Claims 14, 15, 18–20, 22, 23, 25–27, and 29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karner (US 2013/0151293 A1,
June 13, 2013) and Saito (US 2011/0127944 A1, June 2, 2011).
Claims 16, 17, 21, 24, 28, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Karner, Saito, and Jablonowski (WO
2013/045449 A2, Apr. 4, 2013).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Karner, Saito, and Vaghefinazari (US 2016/0193932 A1,
July 7, 2016).

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
We will not sustain these rejections because we agree with Appellant
that the prior art does not disclose “receive, from a charging station of the
plurality of charging stations, the second information, including an available
charging power of the charging station at the point in time of the
charging-start” as required by claim 14.
The Specification discloses:
In an advantageous embodiment of the invention, the
data processing unit is configured in such a way that this
determines a charging duration for charging the energy storage
device of a particular motor vehicle by assigning a particular
motor vehicle to a particular charging station and to a particular
point in time for charging-start through the first and second
information about the charge status and the maximum charging
power of the motor vehicle and the available charging power at
the charging station at the point in time of charging-start. By
knowing the point in time of charging-start and the charging
Appeal 2021-002634
Application 16/088,394

4

duration of several particular motor vehicles, it is possible to
distribute the available charging power at a charging station
efficiently over a longer period.

Spec. 6.
We note that claim 14 requires that it is the data processing unit that
exchanges information with a plurality of motor vehicles and it is the data
processing unit that receives information including the charging power of
the charging station. In the Final Action, the Examiner relies on paragraphs
33–34 of Karner for teaching this subject matter (Final Act. 5; Ans. 4).
We find that paragraphs 33 and 34 of Karner disclose that the user
therein disclosed can receive information about any vehicle charging station.
The information that is received includes the availability of the charging
station, the charging status updates, and notifications of the charging stations
such as the duration of charging, charging completion, electrical fault, and
premature disconnection.
Initially, we agree with Appellant that this disclosure in Karner does
not meet the requirements of claim 14 because the disclosure relates to the
charging station information provided to the user rather than to the central
processing system. In addition, there is no disclosure in these paragraphs
that the information received relates to “the point in time of the
charging-start” as required by claim 14. Karner discloses that the
information is provided to the user and a map including driving directions to
the charging station is generated from the information and as such teaches
that the user receives this information.
Further, we do not agree with the Examiner that the recitation
“wherein the at least one predefinable parameter is configured for the
Appeal 2021-002634
Application 16/088,394

5

assignment . . . such that a greatest possible utilization of the available
charging power of the charging station is achieved at the point in time of the
charging-start” is a recitation of intended use and is afforded little patentable
weight (Final Act. 6). Rather, this wherein clause further describes the
predefinable parameter and therefore is a positive recitation that must be
considered in any patentability determination. The Examiner does not
address this limitation in detail but rather cites Table 1 of Saito for teaching
this subject matter. The Examiner does not explain how Table 1 of Saito
discloses this subject matter. We have reviewed Table 1 of Saito and find
nothing in this table related to the utilization of the available charging power
of the charging station and certainly nothing related to assigning motor
vehicles to charging stations such that a greatest possible utilization of the
available power of the charging station is achieved.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 14 because the Examiner has not established that the prior
art teaches a data processing unit that receives information about the
charging power of the charging stations at the point in time of the
charging-start and that a predefinable parameter that is configured such that
the greatest possible utilization of the available charging power of the
charging station is achieved.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. §103 of claim 14 as being unpatentable over Karner in view of Saito.
We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 15, 18–20,
22, 23, 25–27, and 29 for the same reasons.
We will also not sustain the remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as directed to the remaining claims because each of the remaining
Appeal 2021-002634
Application 16/088,394

6

rejections relies on the findings of the Examiner in regard to the teachings of
Karner and Saito we find lacking above.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner erred in rejecting the appealed claims 14–
33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14, 15,
18–20, 22,
23, 25–27,
29
103 Karner, Saito 14, 15,
18–20, 22,
23, 25–27,
29
16, 17, 21,
24, 28, 30,
31
103 Karner, Saito,
Jablonowski
16, 17, 21,
24, 28, 30,
31
32, 33 103 Karner, Saito,
Vaghefinazari
32, 33
Overall
Outcome
14–33

REVERSED