Ex Parte Gale et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2018

13316605 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/316,605 12/12/2011
28395 7590 05/25/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Allan Roy Gale
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83161428 6939
EXAMINER
HERNANDEZ, MANUEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALLAN ROY GALE,
MICHAEL W. DEGNER, LARRY DEAN ELIE,
and PAUL THEODORE MOMCILOVICH
Appeal 2017-007113
Application 13/316,605
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-8, 10, and 12-17 of
Application 13/316,605 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
1 The '605 Application is a continuation-in-part of Application 12/423,160.
We previously have issued a decision reversing the Examiner in the '160
Application. See Ex parte Gale, No. 2013-004194, slip op. (PTAB April 14,
2015) (available at https://go.usa.gov/xQPfK).
Appeal 2017-007113
Application 13/316,605
(May 19, 2016). Appellants2 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.
BACKGROUND
The '605 Application describes apparatus and methods for charging a
traction battery in a vehicle. See generally Spec. According to the
Specification:
A vehicle may include a traction battery and a battery
charger. The battery charger may receive power from a remote
power distribution circuit and charge the traction battery at a
rate selected in response to whether a load other than the battery
charger is electrically connected with the power distribution
circuit.
A battery charger may receive power from a power
distribution circuit including a neutral and ground and operate
based on the measured voltage between the neutral and ground.
Id. ifif 11-12.
Claim 1 is representative of the '605 Application's claims and is
reproduced below:
1. A vehicle comprising:
a traction battery; and
a battery charger configured to receive power from a remote
power distribution circuit including a fuse box and to charge the
traction battery at a rate selected in response to the battery
charger detecting whether a load other than the battery charger
2 Ford Global Technologies, LLC, is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
2
Appeal 2017-007113
Application 13/316,605
is electrically connected with the power distribution circuit
between the fuse box and the battery charger.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 1.
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Unger3 and Gale. 4 Final Act. 3.
DISCUSSION
Appellants present substantive arguments for reversal of the rejection
of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 2--4. Independent claims 8 and 13
are alleged to be patentable over the combination of Unger and Gale for the
same reasons as independent claim 1. Id. at 4. The dependent claims are
said to be patentable because they depend from an allowable independent
claim. Id. We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative of the claims on
appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Unger describes or
suggests each element of the claimed invention except that "Unger fails to
disclose the circuit breaking element is a fuse box." Final Act. 3. In
particular, the Examiner found that Unger describes a vehicle comprising
a battery charger (14, 16, 18, Fig. l; i-f 0130) configured ... to
charge the traction battery at a rate selected in response to the
battery charger detecting whether a load (load 44, Fig. 1; i-f
0060, 0061, 0131) other than the battery charger is electrically
connected with the power distribution circuit between the
3 US 2006/0125449 Al, published June 15, 2006.
4 US 2008/0218121 Al, published September 11, 2008.
3
Appeal 2017-007113
Application 13/316,605
Id.
circuit breaking element and the battery charger (i-f 0002, 0006,
0007, 0009, 0080, 0050, 0131 (lines 18-26) and 0142).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred: "Unger does not detect
whether a load other than the battery charger is electrically connected with
the power distribution circuit between the circuit breaking element and the
battery charger." Appeal Br. 3. According to Appellants, Unger cannot
describe detection of a load other than the battery charger being electrically
connected between the circuit breaking element and the battery charger
because Unger describes the battery charger as including several elements in
addition to those called out by the Examiner. See id. (citing Unger i-f 131 ).
Appellants explain
Unger goes on to explain that "[t]he high-voltage circuit 12
[which is part of battery charger 1 OJ further includes an on/off
switch 28 and line and neutral input terminals 30 and 32,
respectively." Unger [O 131]. That is, second receptacle 44 and
load current sensor 46 are not electrically connected between
battery charger 10 and circuit breaking element 26 as illustrated
[in Figure 1].
Id. In short, Appellants are arguing that the load is connected to the battery
charger rather than between the battery charger and the circuit breaking
element because Unger states that high-voltage circuit 12 is part of the
battery charger.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained by the Examiner:
As indicated in the Final Office Action, elements 14, 16, and 18
in Figure 1 are relied upon to show the battery charger, since
elements 14, 16, and 18 are responsible for charging the battery
.... This interpretation is consistent with the art-recognized
definition of "battery charger", since the entirety of element 10
is not responsible for charging the battery. For example, sensor
46 measures load current, and 44 is a receptacle to connect the
4
Appeal 2017-007113
Application 13/316,605
next external device (load) to provide power to the external
device (paragraph 013 1). Based on this interpretation,
receptacle 44 is electrically connected between the charger
(comprising at least element 14) and circuit breaking element
26 as shown in Figure 1.
Answer2-3.
Appellants have not convinced us that the Examiner has erred either
in the factual findings or the reasoning provided above. Appellants merely
reply that the Examiner's findings are arbitrary. See Reply Br. 2. This is not
the case, as the Examiner has provided a reasoned explanation for the
finding underlying the rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-8,
10, and 12-17 of the '605 Application.
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
5