Ex Parte CHOU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201813417239 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/417,239 03/10/2012 SHEAN-KWANG CHOU KS-00006 1067 88174 7590 02/26/2018 Flasih Intellectual Prnnertv Tnr EXAMINER Attn. Cheng-Ju Chiang P.O. Box 766 ROBBINS, JERRY D Chino, CA 91708 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2018 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHEAN-KWANG CHOU, YING-CHAO LIAO, HUNG-GSI LIN, CHIH-HUNG LIN, SHENG-HUA CHEN, HSIAO-YU HSU, MING-EN FANG, KAI-PING HSU, and WEN-HUA PAN Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 3—7, and 11—15 of Application 13/417,239 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 2—15 (mailed March 18, 2015). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 1 Ship & Ocean Industries R&D Center is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 BACKGROUND The ’239 Application describes the CHAdeMO (Charge de Move, or Charge for Moving) specification as a commonly used specification for fast DC charging of electric automobiles. Spec. 12. Devices using the CHAdeMO standard use a controller area network (CAN) bus as a main communication interface. Id. Charging systems used in other applications—e.g., vessels—may have an RS-485 compliant bus as the main communication interface. Id. The ’239 Application’s Specification describes a DC current charging system. Id. ^ 3. The charging system comprises a communication control device, a relay, and a CHAdeMO-compliant charge dock. Id. The communication control device communicates with the battery control system through a CAN bus or an RS-485 interface, and selects a charge voltage or charge current and a charging mode based upon information transmitted from the battery control system. Id. The control device transmits the charge voltage or charge current to the CHAdeMO-compliant charge dock and then activates the relay, starting the charging process. Id. The Specification also describes a method for operating such a charging system. Id. 14. Claims 1 and 11 are representative of the ’239 Application’s claims and are reproduced below: 1. A multi-party communication control system for a direct- current (DC) charge system, comprising: a multi-party communication control device comprising a core controller and a communication controller connected with the core controller, wherein the core controller is configured to select a charge voltage, a charge current and a voltage-controlled charge mode, and wherein the communication controller is configured to translate and 2 Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 exchange languages adopted by a controller area network (CAN) bus and an RS-485 interface; a relay, connected to the multi-party communication control device, for activating and inactivating charging of a battery pack; a battery management system, connected with the battery pack, configured to transmit the last battery status of the battery pack to the multi-party communication control device via the RS-485 communication interface every second', a charge dock, connected to the relay and the multi-party communication control system; a charge plug, connected with the charge dock; and a CHAdeMo charger, connected with the charge plug, configured to supply power to the battery pack, wherein the CHAdeMo charger and the multi-party communication control device exchange the current charge status via the CAN bus every 100 ms. Amendment 3 (Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief containing Corrected Claims App.; filed February 5, 2016) (emphasis added). 11. A charge process of a multi-party communication control device for a direct current (DC) charge system, comprising: a) by a multi-party communication control device, determining whether a vessel is in a parking gear, and performing Step (b) when a determination result is affirmative, or else iterating Step (a); b) by the multi-party communication control device, determining whether a charge plug of a CHAdeMO (Charge de Move, or Charge for Moving) charger is plugged to a charge dock, and performing Step (c) when a determination result is affirmative, or else iterating Step (b); 3 Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 c) by a battery management system, transmitting a first information including a current, a voltage, a temperature and remaining electric power of a battery pack to the multi-party communication control device every second; d) by the multi-party communication control device, selecting a charge voltage or a charge current and a voltage-control charge mode for the battery pack; e) by the multi-party communication control device, translating the charge voltage or the charge current required by the battery pack to a second information encoded in a language adopted by the CHAdeMO charger, and transmitting the second information to the CHAdeMO charger every 100 ms; f) by the CHAdeMO charger, determining whether an activation button is pressed; g) by the multi-party communication control device, activating a relay; h) by the multi-party communication control device, determining whether an abnormality is present, wherein the abnormality comprises a signal abnormality, and wherein the signal abnormality is a reception failure of the first information over 5 seconds or a reception failure of the second information over 1 second; i) by the CHAdeMO charger, determining whether an emergency stop button is pressed; j) by the multi-party communication control device, determining whether charging is complete; and k) by the multi-party communication control device, turning off the relay to end the charge process. Id. at 5—6 (emphasis added). 4 Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Dyer,2 Liu,3 Pham,4 and Choi.5 Final Act. 2. 2. Claims 5—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Dyer, Liu, Pham, Choi, and Li.6 Final Act. 6. 3. Claims 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Dyer, Liu, Choi, Li, and Hwang.7 Final Act. 8. 4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Dyer, Liu, Choi, Li, Hwang, and Nishino.8 Final Act. 14. 5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Dyer, Liu, Choi, Li, Hwang, and Palladino.9 Final Act. 14—15. 2 US 2012/0043935 Al, published February 23, 2012. 3 US 2009/0292914 Al, published November 26, 2009. 4 US 2006/0030341 Al, published February 9, 2006. 5 US 2009/0206798 Al, published August 20, 2009. 6 US 2012/0004873 Al, published January 5, 2012. 7 US 8,102,149 B2, issued January 24, 2012. 8 US 2010/0188048 Al, published July 29, 2010. 9 US 7,652,448 B2, issued January 26, 2010. 5 Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 DISCUSSION Appellants only present specific arguments for reversal of the rejections of independent claims 1 and 11. See Appeal Br. 7—11. Accordingly, dependent claims 3—7 will stand or fall with independent claim 1, from which they depend. Similarly, dependent claims 12—15 will stand or fall with independent claim 11, from which they depend. Claim 1. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed because the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 7—8. In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not demonstrated that the prior art describes or suggests an “asymmetric feedback model.†Id. at 7. Appellants argue that [t]he element omitted in the prima facie case is the combination of “a battery management system . . . configured to transmit. . . every second†and “a[ JCHAdeMo charger . . .exchange the current charge status . . . every 100 msâ€[ ](hereinafter the asymmetric feedback model) recited in claim 1. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer. We add the following for emphasis. The Examiner found that Dyer describes or suggests a control device connected to a battery management system. The battery management system is configured to transmit the last battery status of a battery pack to the control device via a communication interface every second. Final Act. 3 (citing Dyer 130). The Examiner also found that Dyer describes or suggests a CHAdeMO charger connected with a charge plug and configured to supply power to the battery pack, wherein the CHAdeMO charger and the control device exchange the current charge status via the CAN bus every 100 ms. 6 Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 Id. (citing Dyer ]f]f 42, 60). The Examiner further found that the combination of Liu and Dyer describes or suggests the use of a multi-party communication control system as the control device in Dyer’s battery charger system. Id. at 3^4. Appellants do not argue that any of the Examiner’s findings are erroneous. See Appeal Br. 7—8. Instead, Appellants argue “that the non obviousness presented in claims 1 and 11 is the combination of two timing clause[s] rather than the individual timing clauses in the Applicants’] Response filed Jan[.] 7, 2015.†Id. at 8. Appellants further argue that “the Office Actionrefuses [sic] to provide aprima facie case that covers the claimed feature, the asymmetric feedback model, as indicated above. Instead, the Office Action insists onseparating [sic] the asymmetric feedback modelinto [sic] two individual timing limitations . . . .†Id. (citing Final Act. 5). This argument is not persuasive, in large part because the ’239 Application’s Specification does not mention the so-called asymmetric feedback model. Without such a disclosure, Appellants’ argument that claim 1 should be interpreted as limited to apparatus that make use of the asymmetric feedback model is unsupported. We, therefore, affirm the rejections of claims 1 and 3—7. Claim 11. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 11 should be reversed for two reasons. See Appeal Br. 7—11. We address each of these arguments below. First, Appellants argue that claim 11 is directed to a process that requires the use of the asymmetric feedback model discussed above. Id. at 7—8. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons provided in 7 Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 connection with our affirmance of the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not reverse the rejection of claim 11 on this basis. Second, Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 11 should be reversed because the Examiner erred by finding that the prior art describes or suggests the limitation recited in step (h) of claim 11. Appeal Br. 9—11. In particular, Appellants argue that each of the claimed “first information†and the “second information†plays two roles in the claimed method. Id. The first role is to convey the particular information comprising the specific information contained within each of these the messages. Id.', see also claim 11 steps (c) and (e). The second role is to convey information regarding network continuity via receipt or non-receipt of the messages themselves. Id. at 9—10. Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because none of the prior art describes or suggests the second role played by each of the “first information message†and the “second information†message. Id. at 10—11. The Examiner found that Li describes or suggests the claim limitation recited in step (h) of claim 11. Final Act. 12. In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner states: [T]he Appellants] . . . [are] introducing new terminology to attempt to distinguish the claimed invention. The terms/phrases “Dual Role of the Signalâ€, “passive signalâ€, “continuityâ€, “first information†and “second information†are found only in Appellants’] arguments and not in the instant application. As such, these terms confuse the understanding of the claimed invention. The concept is that a lack (or absence) of the communication signals is interpreted as an abnormality (passive signal as defined by Appellants]). Appellants] incorrectly state [] that Li. . . would not take action if the signal was not received. 8 Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 Li, in fact, in Para. [0028], clearly states that “the processor can detect whether the first abnormal condition is present by comparing a voltage drop rate of the battery cell in a current time interval with a voltage drop rate of the battery in a previous time interval.†It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that if the signal was not received (the passive signal as defined by the Appellant^]). [T]he calculation of comparing the two voltage drops would signal a problem immediately since the current voltage drop would not hold . . . [the] value. Answer 5—6. We do not discern reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In particular, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (see Reply Br. 5—6), that the Examiner’s rejection is based upon improper use of Official Notice. In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is based upon consideration of the inherent manner in which the apparatus suggested by the combination of Dyer, Liu, Choi, Li, and Hwang would have operated when implemented by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Answer 5—6. In the alternative, we conclude that the differences between the method recited in claim 11, taken as a whole, and the method described or suggested by the combination of Dyer, Liu, Choi, Li, and Hwang would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art10 at the time of the 10 Although neither Appellants nor the Examiner discussed the level of ordinary skill in the art, based upon our review of Appellants’ Specification and the prior art cited by the Examiner, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and 3—5 years of experience 9 Appeal 2016-007447 Application 13/417,239 invention. As Appellants explain in their Reply Brief, the asserted difference between the subject matter of claim 11 and the methods suggested by the combination of prior art relied upon by the Examiner involves the detection of circuit abnormalities by detecting the loss of continuity of signal reception. See Reply Br. 7 (“Li does not disclose that while the signal is actively carrying data to the processor, the continuity of the same signal can be passively recognized as another data (i.e., reception failure of the battery data can be read as a sign of abnormality)â€). We believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that it was desirable to include ways to detect loss of signal reception and to provide notice of this fault as a routine matter of design. For either of these reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 11—15. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3-7, and 11-15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED working in industry. See, e.g., Ex parte Jud, 85 USPQ2d 1280, 1282—84 (BPAI Jan. 2006) (informative) (inferring level of skill in the art from the specification). 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation