Ex Parte Etzold

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2010

10531516 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2010)

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.
10/531,516 04/15/2005 Peter Etzold 3283 6191
7590 07/19/2010
Striker Striker & Stenby
103 East Neck Road
Huntington, NY 11743
EXAMINER
ZHANG, JUE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETER ETZOLD
_____________

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 to 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will sustain the obviousness rejections.
Appellant’s invention is concerned with a charger for charging a
battery from a line voltage and a method of operating a line-supplied charger
for a battery (claims 1 and 9; Fig. 1; Spec. 1:5-14). Appellant’s disclosed
and claimed invention is directed to a method and charger that cycles
between a resting phase (R) and a refreshing phase (A), and separates
components of the charger (see claim 1) or the charge transformer (see
claim 11) from the line voltage during the resting phase (R).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for operating a line-supplied charger (100) for a battery
(200) in a maintaining mode for keeping the battery in a charged state, in
which the battery (200) alternates cyclically between a resting phase (R) and
a refreshing phase (A),
in which the battery (200), in the resting phase (R), from self-
discharging of the battery (200), discharges from an upper threshold voltage
(UOG) to a lower threshold voltage (UUG) which is lower than the upper
threshold voltage (UOG) but is preferably higher than the rated voltage of the
battery (200); and
in which the battery (200), in the refreshing phase (A), is charged
again from the lower (UUG) to the upper threshold voltage (UOG) via a charge
transformer (120) of the charger (100);

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516

3
wherein individual components of the charger (100) comprising at
least the charge transformer (12[0][sic]), are separated from the line voltage
(UN) during the resting phase (R).
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Usui US 5,345,094 Sep. 6, 1994
Faulk US 5,459,652 Oct. 17, 1995
Keidl US 5,617,007 Apr. 1, 1997
Shirai US 6,434,025 B2 Aug. 13, 2002
Wu US 2002/0109485 A1 Aug. 15, 2002

The following obviousness rejections are before us for review:
(i) Claims 1 to 12, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Keidl and Wu.
(ii) Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Keidl and Wu, further in view of Faulk.
(iii) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Keidl and Wu, and Faulk, further in view of
Shirai.
(iv) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Keidl and Wu, and Faulk, further in view of
Usui.
In all of the obviousness rejections (see rejections (i) and (iv) supra),
the Examiner relies upon Keidl (see Figs. 1, 2E, 3; col. 2, l. 60 to col. 3, l.
40) as disclosing the features set forth in independent claims 1 and 9 of a
method of operating a line-supplied charger in, and a battery charger
operating in, a maintaining mode for keeping a battery in a charged state

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516

4
with a rectifier and charge transformer (36) that alternates between a float
charging phase (i.e., resting phase) and a current IX period (i.e., refreshing
phase) under the control of a microprocessor 12 and switching device 32
(Ans. 3-5, 14-17). The Examiner determines that disconnecting a charge
transformer from an input/AC source is well known in the art, and relies
upon Wu (Fig. 2; Abs.; ¶¶ [0025], [0032]) as disclosing a switching device
SW1 that operates to disconnect or separate a charge transformer 1 from a
line voltage or AC power source “AC” as set forth in claims 1 and 9 (Ans.6,
17-21). The Examiner determines that using a switch to separate the charge
transformer from the AC line, as taught by Wu, in the charging method of
Keidl would have been obvious in order to charge a battery (Ans. 6).
With regard to the obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 9 applying
Keidl and Wu (see rejections (i) – (iv) supra), Appellant disputes the
individual teachings of Keidl with respect to whether or not Keidl (i)
discloses or suggests a “charge-maintaining mode” where the “charging
transformer is completely turned off” (Br. 5-6), (ii) has anything to do with
a charge-maintaining mode that operates using “‘saw tooth maintaining
charging’” (Br. 6-7), (iii) anticipates the subject matter of claims 1 and 9
since the transformer 36 of Keidl consumes energy and is not decoupled
from the charger 10 (Br. 7-8), and (iv) separates and connects the charge
transformer from the battery during a resting phase of a charge-maintaining
mode (Br. 8).
Appellant further disputes the teachings, disclosure, and suggestions
of Wu with respect to whether or not Wu discloses (i) a refreshing phase (Br.
9-11), (ii) separating a charge transformer during a refreshing phase of a

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516

5
maintaining mode for keeping a battery in a charged state (Br. 9), and (iii) a
refreshing phase that monitors battery voltage and maintains a battery
voltage at a level above the rated voltage of the battery (Br. 9-10).
With regard to the obviousness rejections applying Keidl and Wu
combined with (i) Faulk (as to claims 13 and 14), (ii) Faulk and Shirai (as to
claim 15), and (iii) Usui (as to claim 18) under § 103, Appellant presents
only nominal arguments and contends (Br. 12) that these dependent claims
are patentable for the same reasons as presented for independent claims 1
and 9.
Claims 1 to 8 recite a method of operating a line-supplied charger
where components of the charger such as the charge transformer are
separated from the line voltage during the resting phase, and claims 9 to 18
recite a charger for charging a battery from a line voltage including a charge
transformer, a rectifier, a control unit, and a switching device for separating
the charge transformer during the resting phase from the line voltage (see
claims 1 and 9). The obviousness rejection of claims 2 to 8, 10 to 12, 16,
and 17 (see rejection (i) listed supra) stands or falls with claims 1 and 9
because Appellant argued these claims with claims 1 and 9. The
obviousness rejections of claims 13 to 15 and 18 also stand or fall with that
of claims 1 and 9 because (i) Appellant does not argue that Faulk, Shirai, or
Usui fail to teach the limitations recited in claims 1 and 9 of separating the
line voltage from the charge transformer during a resting phase, and (ii)
Appellant presents only nominal arguments as to claims 13 to 15 and 18 (see
Br. 12).

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516

6
ISSUE
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the issue is: Do Keidl and Wu
disclose or suggest separating a line voltage from a charge transformer
during a resting phase of a battery charger or method of operating a line-
supplied charger as recited in claims 1 and 9?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Keidl describes a method for operating line-supplied charger 10 by
separating a line voltage Vin from a charge transformer 36 during a
resting phase of the battery charger 10 using a FET switch 32 to
control current flow to the battery 14 by switching FET 32 on and off
(Figs. 1, 2E, 3; col. 3, ll. 1-39). Keidl describes and shows (see Fig.
3) alternating cyclically between (i) a zero current period of a float
charging phase (i.e., resting phase) in which the battery 14 is
discharged from an upper threshold voltage VC*1.01 to a lower
threshold voltage VC*0.99 (see generally col. 4, ll. 38-56 and col. 5,
ll. 14-17), and (ii) a current IX period of the float charging phase (i.e.,
refreshing phase) in which the battery 14 is charged from a lower
threshold voltage VC*0.99 to an upper threshold voltage VC*1.01
(see generally col. 3, l. 64 to col. 4, l. 37 and col. 5, ll. 14-17).
2. Wu describes a battery charging method and charger having a switch
SW1 for separating a line voltage AC from a switch power supply
circuit (i.e., charge transformer) 1, such that current is transferred to
the battery 6 during charging and not transferred to the battery 6
during a non-conductive time period (Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0025], [0032]).

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516

7
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The
Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to the artisan. Accordingly, one can not
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981).

ANALYSIS
Turning now to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 12, 16, and 17
over Keidl and Wu, we agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact and
conclusions of obviousness with respect to claims 1 and 9 (Ans. 3-13), and
adopt them as our own, along with some amplification of the Examiner’s
explanation of the teachings of Keidl (see FF 1) and Wu (see FF 2). See
Fine, 837 F.2d at 1073; Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. The Examiner has
established a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness
(Fine, 837 F.2d at 1073), and the Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the
rejection possesses a rational underpinning supporting the legal conclusion
of obviousness. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516

8
While the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim
term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims.
CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir.
2005). Appellant asserts that Keidl differs from the claimed charging
method and charger. However, such asserted differences are not set forth in
the claims. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d at 1231.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s
arguments that Keidl does not disclose or suggest (i) a “charge-maintaining
mode” where the “charging transformer is completely turned off” (Br. 5-6),
(ii) a charge-maintaining mode that operates using “‘saw tooth maintaining
charging’” (Br. 6-7), (iii) the subject matter of claims 1 and 9 since the
transformer 36 of Keidl consumes energy and is not decoupled from the
charger 10 (Br. 7-8), and (iv) “separating and connecting the charge
transformer from the battery” during a resting phase of a charge-maintaining
mode (Br. 8). These arguments are not commensurate in scope with the
language of claims 1 and 9 which do not (i) contain the phrases “charge-
maintaining mode,” “saw tooth maintaining charging,” and “decoupled,” and
(ii) recite separating the charge transformer from the battery (but instead
recite separating the charge transformer from the line voltage).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references (combined in the manner set forth by the Examiner in the prima
facie case) would have suggested to the artisan. The combination set forth
by the Examiner relies upon Keidl as teaching a battery charging method
and charger for keeping a battery in a charged state, where the battery
alternates cyclically between a resting phase and a refreshing phase, and Wu

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516

9
as teaching a switch SW1 for separating a charge transformer 1 from an AC
power line or supply (see Ans. 3-9). In the obviousness rejection, the
Examiner has not relied upon Wu for a refreshing phase, but upon Keidl.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based on a combination of references. Keller, 642
F.2d at 426. Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions that Wu fails to disclose
or suggest (i) a refreshing phase (Br. 9-11), (ii) separating a charge
transformer during a refreshing phase of a maintaining mode for keeping a
battery in a charged state (Br. 9), and (iii) a refreshing phase that monitors
battery voltage and maintains a battery voltage at a level above the rated
voltage of the battery (Br. 9-10) are unpersuasive in view of the Examiner’s
reliance on Keidl as disclosing the refreshing phase.
Based on our findings with respect to Keidl (see FF 1) and Wu (see
FF 2), we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Keidl and Wu
meets all of the method step limitations set forth in claim 1, and all of the
charger limitations set forth in claim 9. Appellant has not demonstrated that
the Examiner erred in combining Keidl and Wu, or that the obviousness
rejection is otherwise in error.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9 based upon the teachings of Keidl and Wu. The
same holds true for dependent claims 2 to 8, 10 to 12, 16, and 17 which were
argued with claims 1 and 9. The obviousness rejections of claims 13 to 15
and 18 are sustained because Appellant has not presented any substantial
patentability arguments for these claims apart from the arguments presented
for claims 1 and 9.

Appeal 2009-002371
Application 10/531,516

10
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Keidl and Wu taken in combination disclose or suggest separating a
line voltage from a charge transformer during a resting phase of a battery
charger or method of operating a line-supplied charger as recited in claims 1
and 9.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 to 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
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

KIS

STRIKER STRIKER & STENBY
103 EAST NECK ROAD
HUNTINGTON, NY 11743