Ex Parte Bischoff

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2009

10485779 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CLAUS BISCHOFF
_____________

Appeal 2009-002806
Application 10/485,779
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: September 21, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-002806
Application 10/485,779

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 15-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to charge-state equalization among
battery cells which is carried out fully automatically whenever necessary, without
requiring a service facility and a charger connected to the public power supply
(Spec. 4:1-6). This fully automatic charge equalization is carried out with the aid
of the generator of the vehicle electrical system and a secondary battery of the
respective vehicle. (Spec. 4:7-9).
Claim 15, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
15. A method for implementing a charge-state equalization among cells of a
vehicle battery, comprising:
charging of a secondary battery of a vehicle during vehicle operation;
detecting a need for charge-state equalization among the cells of the vehicle
battery during vehicle operation;
bringing the vehicle battery into the charge-readiness state;
checking whether a charge-state equalization may be implemented;
supplying a charging current from the secondary battery to the vehicle
battery; and
implementing the charge-state equalization among the cells of the vehicle
battery.

Appeal 2009-002806
Application 10/485,779

3

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ukita US 5,905,360 May 18, 1999

The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ukita.
Appellant argues claims 15-28 as a group (App. Br. 4-10).1 We select claim
15 as representative. Accordingly, claims 16-28 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) (2004).

ANTICIPATION
ISSUE
Appellant argues that Ukita does not disclose or suggest the feature of
bringing the vehicle battery into the charge-readiness state (App. Br. 5). Appellant
argues that under the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above-recited
statements of Ukita, “there is simply no way that 'determining whether a
predetermined executing condition of an equalizing charge operation is met’
is in any way equivalent to 'bringing the vehicle battery into the charge-
readiness state’” (App. Br. 5). Appellant argues that the Examiner ignores the
fundamental difference between the affirmative action recited in the claim 15

1 Only arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief have
not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
Appeal 2009-002806
Application 10/485,779

4
(“bringing: the vehicle battery into the charge-readiness state”) and the passive
identification of the condition disclosed in Ukita (“determining: whether a
predetermined executing condition . . . is met”) (App. Br. 5).
The Examiner finds that Ukita does disclose a charge readiness state,
because Ukita teaches that the “'determination of whether or not a predetermined
executing condition is met . . . and there is no need for supplying and receiving
electric power between the battery blocks and the vehicle propelling motor-
generator’ (col. 2, ln 42-53) is reasonably interpreted as equivalent to 'bringing the
vehicle battery into the charge-readiness state’” (Ans. 7). The Examiner clarifies
that when the executing conditions of equalizing charge or refreshing discharge are
met and there is no need to supply or receive power from the vehicle, the
elimination of the SOC (state of charge) unbalance between the battery blocks can
be performed (Ans. 7). “The SOC unbalance is eliminated by transferring energy
between the two battery blocks (abstract and col. 4, ll. 1-32).” The Examiner
reasons that a charge-readiness state of the battery must occur for the elimination
of the SOC unbalance to be carried out (Ans. 7). The battery is “brought” into the
charge-readiness state by having the necessity for supplying and receiving electric
power between the battery and the vehicle propelling motor generator removed
(e.g. when a driver turns off an ignition key or when a shift lever is brought into a
neutral or parking position) (Ukita, col. 4, ll. 1-14) (Ans. 7-8). Even though there
is a step of identifying the condition disclosed in Ukita (“determining whether a
predetermined executing condition . . . is met,” as mentioned by the Appellant),
that is not the only step in the overall process for equalizing/balancing the battery
charge-states, as noted by the citations provided above and the current explanation
Appeal 2009-002806
Application 10/485,779

5
of “bringing the battery into the charge-readiness state” (Ans. 8). Furthermore,
turning off the ignition or brining the shift lever into a neutral or parking position
are both considered affirmative actions carried out to effect a physical change in
the state of the vehicle battery (i.e., it will not need to supply or receive energy
from the motor-generator of the vehicle, which would otherwise alter its charge
state) (Ans. 8).
The issue, then, is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred by
finding that Ukita teaches “bringing the vehicle battery into the charge-readiness
state” as recited in claim 15.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following relevant findings of fact (FF) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Ukita teaches that when the executing conditions of equalizing charge or
refreshing discharge are met and there is no need to supply or receive power
from the vehicle (e.g. when a driver turns off an ignition key or when the
driver brings the shift lever into a neutral or parking position), then the
batteries or battery blocks become ready for SOC balancing and the
elimination of the SOC (State Of Charge) unbalance between the battery
blocks can be performed (col. 3, l. 67-col. 4, l. 11).
2. Ukita teaches that the “executing condition” is for example “an excess of the
voltage unbalance between batteries or between battery blocks over a
predetermined level” (col. 2, ll. 60-63) (i.e., the executing condition is when
the battery blocks are unbalanced).
Appeal 2009-002806
Application 10/485,779

6
3. Ukita teaches that the SOC unbalance is eliminated by transferring energy
between the two battery blocks (col. 2, ll. 42-50).

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS
Ukita teaches that when the executing conditions of equalizing charge or
refreshing discharge is met and there is no need to supply or receive power from
the vehicle, the elimination of the SOC (State Of Charge) unbalance between the
battery blocks can be performed (FF 1). The “executing condition” is for example
“an excess of the voltage unbalance between batteries or between battery blocks
over a predetermined level” (FF 2) (i.e., the executing condition is when the
battery blocks are unbalanced). The SOC unbalance is eliminated by transferring
energy between the two battery blocks (FF 3). The batteries or battery blocks
become ready for SOC balancing (i.e., are “brought” into the charge-readiness
state) when the necessity for supplying and receiving electric power between the
batteries or battery blocks and the vehicle propelling motor generator removed
(e.g. when a driver turns off an ignition key or when the driver brings the shift
lever into a neutral or parking position) (FF 1).
Appeal 2009-002806
Application 10/485,779

7
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 7) that a charge-
readiness state of the battery (i.e., turning off an ignition key or bringing the shift
lever into a neutral or parking position) must occur for the elimination of the SOC
unbalance to be carried out. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument (App. Br.
5) that the Examiner ignores the fundamental difference between the affirmative
action recited in claim 15 (“bringing: the vehicle battery into the charge-readiness
state”) because turning off an ignition key or bringing the shift lever into a neutral
or parking position constitute affirmative actions.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 and claims 16-28 which fall with claim
15.

CONCLUSION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred by
finding that Ukita teaches “bringing the vehicle battery into the charge-readiness
state.”

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 15 and 16-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-002806
Application 10/485,779

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004