2020003137 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 2021

2020003137 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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. 14/998,148 12/23/2015 Josef Krammer 080437.68243US 8670 23911 7590 04/02/2021 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 14300 WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300 EXAMINER HERNANDEZ, MANUEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2021 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): edocket@crowell.com mloren@crowell.com tche@crowell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEF KRAMMER and JOACHIM GOETHEL Appeal 2020-003137 Application 14/998,148 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s June 25, 2019 decision to finally reject claims 1–15 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “a system comprising a power withdrawal point on a power supply network and comprising a vehicle for 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2020-003137 Application 14/998,148 2 the corded charging of a traction battery of the vehicle at the power withdrawal point” (Spec. ¶ 2). The “vehicle has a charging electronics unit for charging, and the vehicle can be electrically connected to the vehicle- external power withdrawal point via a charging cable for the charging process” (id.). Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising a power withdrawal point on a power supply network and comprising a vehicle for a corded charging process of a traction battery of the vehicle at the power withdrawal point, the vehicle having a charging electronics unit for charging, and the vehicle being electrically connectable to the vehicle-external power withdrawal point via a charging cable for the corded charging process, wherein the charging cable is configured as one of (i) a cable connected outside the vehicle to a station charging device for the corded charging process, and (ii) a cable charging device; the station charging device or the cable charging device is respectively electrically connected to the power withdrawal point when a charging connection has been established, and such connected power withdrawal point can supply an alternating current for charging via the station charging device or via the cable charging device, respectively; the supplied alternating current is respectively conducted from the station charging device or from the cable charging device over charging current lines of the charging cable for charging; the station charging device or the cable charging device is respectively electrically connected to the charging electronics unit via a pilot line when the charging connection has been established; the corded charging process is controllable by an electric pilot signal applied via the pilot line; and Appeal 2020-003137 Application 14/998,148 3 the charging electronics unit detects physical parameters of the pilot signal via the pilot line, physical parameters of the power supply network at the connected power withdrawal point via the charging current lines, and physical parameters of the station charging device or of the cable charging device via the pilot line, respectively, during the corded charging process so as to produce a parameter data set characterizing the connected power withdrawal point, wherein the charging electronics unit is configured to identify which of a plurality of power withdrawal points the connected power withdrawal point is based on the parameter data set. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Woody et al. US 2009/0091291 A1 April 9, 2009 Pudar et al. US 2009/0210357 A1 August 20, 2009 Mitsutani et al. US 2011/0127956 A1 June 2, 2011 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Mitsutani. 2. Claim 2, 5, and 7–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mitsutani in view of Woody. 3. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mitsutani in view of Woody, and further in view of Pudar. DISCUSSION Appellant bases its arguments regarding the obviousness rejections (Rejections 2 and 3) on the same arguments made in conjunction with the anticipation rejection (Appeal Br. 9). Accordingly, we focus our analysis on Appeal 2020-003137 Application 14/998,148 4 the anticipation rejection of claim 1. We address other claims as needed and as argued by Appellant. “A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim . . . if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In this instance, Appellant contends that Mitsutani does not teach the following limitation from claim 1: “wherein the charging electronics unit is configured to identify which of a plurality of power withdrawal points the connected power withdrawal point is based on the parameter data set” (Supp. Appeal Br. 3). According to Appellant, this limitation reflects that the “charging unit . . . detects the physical parameters of a power withdrawal point in the form of analog data so as to be able to distinguish or recognize the specific power withdrawal point with respect to the charging specific properties thereof” (Appeal Br. 4–5 (citing Spec. ¶ 9)). Appellant argues that Mitsutani, by contrast, discloses a system in which voltage, frequency and rated current provided by a connected charging system is detected and used to make a decision as to whether the charging process is permitted to proceed (Appeal Br. 5 (citing Mitsutani, ¶ 106)). Appellant’s position is that this functionality of Mitsutani’s system is not the same as the claimed functionality of identifying which charging station is connected from among a plurality of possible withdrawal points (id.). It is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification . . . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Appeal 2020-003137 Application 14/998,148 5 Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s characterization of Mitsutani’s disclosure, but takes the position that “claim 1 does not recite identifying a unique power withdrawal point from amongst the unique plurality of power withdrawal points of the power supply network, and allows for a broader interpretation” (Ans. 5). We agree with Appellant that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 requires that the charging electronics unit be able to identify the specific power withdrawal point being used from a plurality of power withdrawal points. The plain language of the claim dictates such a result, and the Examiner has not pointed to anything in the Specification which would suggest such a broad interpretation (see, e.g. Ans. 4). Claim 1 states, in part: wherein the charging electronics unit is configured to identify which of a plurality of power withdrawal points the connected power withdrawal point is based on the parameter data set. (Claim 1, emphasis added). The Examiner suggests that this language is met because Mitsutani requires a determination of whether a specific power withdrawal point can meet certain requirements (Ans. 5). However, in our judgment, the claim language requires identification of a specific power withdrawal point from a plurality of power withdrawal points based on the parameter data set. Mitsutani admittedly does not disclose such an arrangement (see Ans. 5). Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejection over Mitsutani. Moreover, the rejections of the remaining claims rely on the same erroneous claim interpretation. Therefore, we reverse those rejections as well. Appeal 2020-003137 Application 14/998,148 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 14, 15 102(a)(1) Mitsutani 1, 4, 14, 15 2, 5, 7–13 103 Mitsutani, Woody 2, 5, 7–13 3, 6 103 Mitsutani, Woody, Pudar 3, 6 Overall Outcome 1–15 REVERSED