Ex Parte Bernard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2017

13198346 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2017)

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.
13/198,346 08/04/2011 Adam D. Bernard P013645-GMVE-CD 7626
80748 7590 06/23/2017
Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
KING, RODNEY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM D. BERNARD
Appeal 2016-004081
Application 13/198,346
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a battery charging
system and method for an electrically-powered vehicle, for estimating a
charging duration for a vehicle in response to an indication of a desired
vehicle range (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A battery charging system for an electrically-powered
vehicle, the charging system comprising:
Appeal 2016-004081
Application 13/198,346
one or more operator interface associated with the
vehicle and configured to receive an operator input and to
provide the operator input to at least one charging controller
associated with the vehicle; and
at least one battery configured to power the vehicle and
to receive a charge from an off-board charging source;
wherein the charging controller is configured to receive
the operator input, to predict an estimated charging duration
based at least in part on the operator input, to affect [the] a
duration of the charge in response to the operator input, and to
provide the estimated charging duration to the operator
interface for presentation to an operator;
wherein the operator interface is configured to receive
the estimated charging duration from the charging controller
and to present the estimated charging duration to an operator;
wherein the operator input defines a desired vehicle
range; and
wherein the charging controller is further configured to
provide the charge, during a time equal to the charging
duration, to the at least one battery from the off-board charging
source and to limit the charging duration to only a length of
time necessary to enable the electrically powered vehicle to
achieve the desired vehicle range.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Kim US 2006/0261782 A1 Nov. 23, 2006
US 2008/0033640 A1 Feb. 7, 2008
US 2009/0107743 A1 Apr. 30, 2009
US 2010/0094496 A1 Apr. 15, 2010
US 2010/0106631 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
US 2010/0164439 A1 July 1, 2010
US 2010/0268411 A1 Oct. 21, 2010
Amano
Alston
Hershkovitz
Kurayama
Ido
Taguchi
2
Appeal 2016-004081
Application 13/198,346
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,3,4, 10, 11, 13—16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, and Ido (Final
Act. 3-9).
Claims 17—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, and Ido (Final Act. 9—11).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, Ido, and Kurayama (Final Act. 11)
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, Ido, and Amano (Final Act. 11—
12).
Claims 6—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, Ido, and Kim (Final Act. 12—14).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, Ido, and Alston (Final Act. 14—15)
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13 16, and 20
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11,
13—16, and 20, is patentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, and Ido (App. Br.
6—10). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Hershkovitz,
Taguchi, and Ido teaches or suggests “wherein the charging controller is
configured ... to predict an estimated charging duration based at least in
part on the operator input,” as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal 2016-004081
Application 13/198,346
Issue 2: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Hershkovitz,
Taguchi, and Ido teaches or suggests “wherein the charging controller is
further configured ... to limit the charging duration to only a length of time
necessary to enable the electrically-powered vehicle to achieve the desired
vehicle range” as recited in claim 1?
Issue 3: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Hershkovitz, Taguchi, and Ido?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1:
Appellant argues Taguchi does not teach “wherein the charging
controller is configured ... to predict an estimated charging duration based
at least in part on the operator input,” as recited, but instead, teaches “the
charge period may be predicted based on the electric power amount
increased in the battery 13 per unit of time” (App. Br. 9). Thus, according
to Appellant, in Taguchi, the charge period is not predicted based at least in
part on the operator input {id.). As a result, Appellant asserts, even if
Hershkovitz were modified by Taguchi as the Examiner proposes, the
combination would fail to teach the disputed limitation {id.).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Taguchi’s teaching a
“charge period may be predicted based on the electric power amount
increased in the battery 13 per unit of time,” which “is confirmed or
requested whether the user agrees with a start of the charge based on the
charge amount,” teaches or at least suggests the charge period may be
predicted based at least in part on the operator input (Ans. 4; Taguchi 177).
4
Appeal 2016-004081
Application 13/198,346
We additionally note the Examiner relies on Hershkovitz to teach a
charging duration is estimated based at least in part on the operator input
(Final Act. 4—5; Hershkovitz || 108—109). The Examiner relies on Taguchi
to teach the charge period may be predicted based on user input {id. at 5).
Appellants have not persuasively addressed the combination of
Hershkovitz’s and Taguchi’s teachings. Thus, Appellants have not
persuaded us the combination of Taguchi’s teaching that a charge period
may be predicted and Herskovitz’s teaching that a charge period may be
estimated based at least in part on operator input, fails to teach “wherein the
charging controller is configured ... to predict an estimated charging
duration based at least in part on the operator input,” as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited independent claim 20.
Issue 2:
Appellant additionally contends Ido fails to teach “the charging
controller is further configured to . . . limit the charging duration to only a
length of time necessary to enable the electrically powered vehicle to
achieve the desired vehicle range,” as recited in claims 1 and 20 (App. Br.
9). In particular, Appellant argues Ido teaches obtaining a necessary
capacity of a battery to be charged and reserved charging of a battery
according to a reserved reservation time {id. at 9—10 (citing Ido 256, 8,
34^40); Reply Br. 3 (citing Ido Tflf 43, 45)). According to Appellant, Ido
describes the charging time of the battery is determined based on a
determination of an amount of time and not desired range, to establish the
length of reserved charging (App. Br. 10). More specifically, Appellant
asserts Ido does not teach the “next location for charging” and does not
5
Appeal 2016-004081
Application 13/198,346
consider the desired vehicle range into consideration for limiting the
charging duration (Reply Br. 3). Appellant further asserts Ido teaches a
charging time calculation unit that corrects the obtained charging time
according to instruction from a reservation unit which may or may not result
in a full charge {id.). Therefore, Appellant contends, Ido teaches the ‘“the
necessary capacity calculation unit 55 calculates the capacity of the battery
13 necessary until the next charging’” {id. at 4 (citing Ido 43)).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Initially, we note
Appellants have not defined explicitly the recited term “desired vehicle
range” in the Specification. Nor does the claim require calculation of a
“desired vehicle range.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Ido’s
average value of a traveling distance teaches a desired vehicle range and
further, Ido’s calculating of the necessary capacity of the battery based on
the average value of a traveling distance of the vehicle (the desired range)
(and thereafter charging the battery to the necessary capacity) teaches
limiting the charging duration to only a length of time necessary to enable
the vehicle to achieve the desired vehicle range (Ans. 3; Ido Tflf 34^40, 42,
43, claim 1).
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the combination of
references fail to teach or suggest “wherein the charging controller is further
configured ... to limit the charging duration to only a length of time
necessary to enable the electrically-powered vehicle to achieve the desired
vehicle range,” as recited in claim 1.
6
Appeal 2016-004081
Application 13/198,346
Issue 3:
Appellant additionally argues the combination of Ido’s charging
controller would require “impermissible further programming” to meet the
subject claim limitation (App. Br. 6—7). Appellant further argues the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning “to modify the system of Hershkovitz to
include the features of Ido (disclosing a charge setting device) ‘in order to
enable reserved charging of a battery,”’ lacks a rational underpinning (App.
Br. 8). Specifically, Appellant contends Ido discloses reserved charging of a
battery according to a reservation time which is unrelated to the claimed
limitation “the charging controller is further configured to . . . limit the
charging duration to only a length of time necessary to enable the
electrically powered vehicle to achieve the desired vehicle range” (id.).
We are not persuaded the Examiner has failed to show the
combination teaches the disputed limitation, as discussed above with
reference to Issue 2. Moreover, in light of this finding, Appellant has not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us further
programming would be necessary. Indeed, we are not persuaded combining
the teachings and suggestions would have been uniquely challenging or
otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Additionally,
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning
lacks rational underpinning or that the Examiner applied impermissible
hindsight reconstruction.
Appellant further contends, even if Hershkovitz were modified by
Taguchi and Ido, the disputed limitation would not be taught and thus,
would not work for the “intended purpose of the claimed invention” — “to
limit the charging duration to only a length of time necessary to enable the
7
Appeal 2016-004081
Application 13/198,346
electrically-powered vehicle to achieve the desired range” (id.). Appellant,
however, has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us
the combination of the teachings and suggestions of Hershkovitz, Taguchi,
and Ido would fail “to limit the charging duration to only a length of time
necessary to enable the electrically-powered vehicle to achieve the desired
range.” Indeed, as set forth above, we are not persuaded the combination
fails to teach the disputed limitation.1
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the
combination of Hershkovitz, Taguchi, and Ido teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and as commensurately recited
in independent claim 20. Nor are we persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined the teachings and suggestions of Hershkovitz, Taguchi, and Ido.
Dependent claims 3,4, 10, 11, and 13—16 are not separately argued (App.
Br. 10-11). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1,3,4, 10, 11, 13—
16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hershkovitz,
Taguchi, and Ido.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2, 5—9, 12, and 17—19
Dependent claims 2, 5—9, 12, and 17—19 are not argued separately
(App. Br. 10—11); therefore, these claims fall with independent claim 1 from
which they depend.
1 Although we find the references teach the disputed limitation, we note a
statement of intended use in an apparatus claim cannot distinguish over a
prior art apparatus that discloses all the recited limitations and is capable of
performing the recited function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
8
Appeal 2016-004081
Application 13/198,346
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13—16, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi,
and Ido is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, and Ido is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, Ido, and Kurayama is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, Ido, and Amano is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, Ido, and Kim is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hershkovitz, Taguchi, Ido, and Alston is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
9