Ex Parte de ArroyabeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201813946005 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 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. 13/946,005 07/19/2013 Jose Lopez de Arroyabe 080437.65539US 3949 23911 7590 01/25/2018 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 14300 WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300 EXAMINER GRANT, ROBERT J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2018 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 tche @ crowell. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSE LOPEZ DE ARROYABE Appeal 2016-007742 Application 13/946,005 Technology Center 2800 Before DONNA M. PRAISS, AVELYN M. ROSS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed July 19, 2013 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action appealed from mailed June 5, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 16, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 13, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed August 12, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellant is Applicant, Bayerishche Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, which according to the Appeal Brief is also the real party in interest and assignee of the above-captioned application. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-007742 Application 13/946,005 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal relates to a battery system for a motor vehicle which “permits an active charge balancing, particularly such that it can be charged from the outside in a simple manner.” Spec. 110. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A battery system, comprising: a cell arrangement including several battery cells electrically connected in series; a transformer comprising a first winding, several second windings, and a third winding, wherein: the first winding of the transformer is electrically connectable in parallel • with the cell arrangement, each second winding is electrically connectable in parallel with a respective one of the several battery cells, and the third winding is electrically coupled to feed energy from an external energy source to the transformer such that the energy is intermediately stored in the first winding. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App’x). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: A. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as anticipated by Tsuruga.3 Final Act. 2. B. Claims 2, 4, 7—9, and 13—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsuruga in view of Ward.4 Id. at 4. 3 Tsuruga et al., US 6,538,414 Bl, issued March 25, 2003 (“Tsuruga”). 4 Thomas A. Ward, US 2008/0143292 Al, published June 19, 2008 (“Ward”). 2 Appeal 2016-007742 Application 13/946,005 Appellant requests reversal of Rejections A—B. See generally Appeal Br. Because our basis for reversal of Rejections A and B is common to all claims by virtue of dependence (claims 2—12, 15—17) or independent recitation (claim 14), we focus our discussion below on claim 1. OPINION The Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Tsuruga. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Tsuruga teaches the claimed battery system as illustrated in Figure 2 of Tsuruga (shown below). Id. at 2—3. L d 3 Appeal 2016-007742 Application 13/946,005 Tsuruga Fig. 2. Figure 2 shows a circuit diagram having a unit energy storage device according to a second embodiment of Tsuruga. Tsuruga col. 4,11. 54—58. According to the Examiner, element L7 of Tsuruga corresponds to the first winding, elements LI—L6 correspond to the several second windings, and element L8 corresponds to the third winding of claim 1. Final Act. 3^4. Appellant argues that Tsuruga fails to teach that energy is stored within the first winding L7. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding, that by transferring energy the first winding L7 “intermediately stores” energy, is in error. Id. at 8—9. Appellant states that “the recited storage, albeit intermediate in nature, is not transient in nature” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view “the transmission of energy as being equivalent to the storage of energy,” just like cables connecting a battery to a vehicle are not viewed as “storing” energy. Id. at 9. We find Appellant’s argument persuasive of reversible error. It is well-established that “during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 1 expressly requires “the third winding is electrically coupled to feed energy from an external energy source to the transformer such that the energy is intermediately stored in the first winding. ” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App’x)(emphasis added). The claim itself explains that the energy fed from the third winding to the transformer and is then stored for a period 4 Appeal 2016-007742 Application 13/946,005 of time in the first winding. The Specification is consistent with this understanding. For example, the Specification explains that [b]y way of the third winding 8, the electric energy supplied by the external energy source 10 can be fed into the transformer 4 and can be intermediately stored in the first winding 5. By closing the switch So, the fed energy can then be supplied to the cell arrangement 2. Spec. 125 (emphasis added). Thus, energy is stored in the first winding when switch So is open and energy is held in reserve, i.e., not transferred to the cell arrangement. The difficulty with Examiner’s construction of “intermediately stored”—“the time it takes for the power to appear on the winding till the time which the power is no longer present in the winding” (Ans. 3)—is that it is overbroad and effectively reads out “intermediately stored” by encompassing a continuous flow of energy through the first winding into the battery cells. Because the Examiner makes no finding that element L7 of Tsuruga is capable of holding energy in reserve for later use, the preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that claim 1 is anticipated by Tsuruga. We therefore cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17.5 CONCLUSION Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as anticipated by Tsuruga. 5 Ward, the additional reference cited by the Examiner in rejecting claims 2, 4, 7—9, and 13—17 (Rejection B), does not remedy the asserted deficiencies of Tsuruga. 5 Appeal 2016-007742 Application 13/946,005 Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 7—9, and 13—17 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsuruga in view of Ward. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—17 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation