Ex Parte Gale et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201612423169 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/423, 169 04/14/2009 28395 7590 05/26/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L 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. 81170101 8040 EXAMINER HERNANDEZ, MANUEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2016 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, and LARRY DEAN ELIE Appeal2014-009051 Application 12/423,169 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 13-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants' claimed invention is directed toward power distribution circuit temperature monitoring methods and apparatus. Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative: 1. A method for monitoring a temperature change of a power distribution circuit including a power line, return line and ground line, the method comprising: Appeal2014-009051 Application 12/423,169 measuring an output current and output voltage of the power distribution circuit at an input to a load electrically connected to the power distribution circuit, wherein the output voltage is measured between the ground line and one of the power line and return line; and determining a change in temperature of at least one of the power line and return line based on a change in at least one of the output current and output voltage. 11. A battery charger comprising: a control arrangement configured to measure an output current and output voltage of a power distribution circuit at the battery charger and to control the output current according to a change in temperature of at least one of a power line and return line of the power distribution circuit, wherein the change in temperature is based on a change in at least one of the output current and output voltage. Granville Richardson Karam The References us 5,181,026 US 2009/0174362 Al US 7,593,747 Bl The Rejections Jan. 19, 1993 July 9, 2009 Sep.22,2009 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 2, 5, 16, and 17 over Karam in view of Granville, claims 6-8, 11, and 13 over Richardson in view of Karam and claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 over Richardson in view of Karam and Granville. OPINION We reverse the rejection over Karam in view of Granville and affirm the rejections over Richardson in view of Karam and over Richardson in view of Karam and Granville. 2 Appeal2014-009051 Application 12/423,169 Rejection over Karam in view of Granville The Appellants' claims 1 and 16, which are the only independent claims among claims 1, 2, 5, 16, and 17, require measuring output voltage between a ground line and one of a power line and a return line. Karam discloses a Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) system comprising a communications pathway (28) between power-sourcing equipment (PSE 24) and a remotely powerable device (PD 26) which includes a load (52) such as a Voice-over-IP phone (col. 3, 11. 41--43; col. 4, 11. 9-10; Fig. 1). The communications pathway (28) comprises cabling (30) including conductor pairs (34A,B; 34C,D) each having a current ( 44) supply leg (34A, 34C) and return leg (34B, 34D) (col. 3, 1. 45-col. 4, 1. 5; Fig. 1). Karam calculates communication pathway (28) temperature changes based upon resistances obtained from measured potential differences across a conductor pair (34A,B) and currents through that conductor pair (34A,B) (col. 4, 11. 48---66; col. 7, 1. 49 - col. 8, 1. 25). If the communication pathway (28) temperature change is too high a controller (88) disables delivery of power to the PD (26) and sends a warning message to a user (col. 8, 11. 31--44 ). Granville measures power line voltage using an electrostatic field meter attached to the power line and referenced to earth ground (col. 3, 11. 41--49). The Appellants assert that Karam's PoE system cannot be referenced to ground (App. Br. 3). In response the Examiner finds that 1) a PoE system such as that of Karam can comprise a category 6 cable including ground wiring called a drain wire, and 2) the term "ground line" includes a return line (Ans. 3--4). The Appellants, however, challenge those findings (Reply 3 Appeal2014-009051 Application 12/423,169 Br. 2). Consequently, we do not accept the findings as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). Because the findings are challenged the Examiner must provide evidentiary support for them to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, but the Examiner has not done so. Rejections over Richardson in view of Karam and over Richardson in view of Karam and Granville The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 4---6). Although an additional reference is applied in the rejection of claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 the Appellants do not provide a substantive argument for the separate patentability of those claims (App. Br. 5---6). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 11. Claims 6-11 and 13-15 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Richardson discloses a vehicle battery jump starter which uses a voltage difference betv,reen jump starter batteries (22) and a contact relay (34) to measure a voltage drop across a temperature-and-resistance calibrated 00 AWG shunt cable (36) to calculate the current being delivered by the jump starter batteries (22) to the vehicle's electrical system (28) (i-f 12). A temperature sensor (40) monitors the shunt cable (3 6) 's temperature to compensate for resistance changes caused by high current passing therethrough and to detect overheating conditions (i-f 13). If the shunt cable (36)'s temperature rises above a safe threshold temperature the system prevents further operation until the shunt cable (36)'s temperature falls below a minimum safe temperature (i-f 24). The Appellants assert that "[a ]pp lying the techniques of Karam to Richardson would obscure the local temperature of Richardson's shunt 4 Appeal2014-009051 Application 12/423,169 cable 36 because Karam assesses the average temperature of its communication pathway 28 rather than localized parts of it" (App. Br. 4) and that "the localized temperature of Richardson's shunt cable 36 is likely to be different than the average temperature between Richardson's vehicle 28 and 'C' [shunt cable 36] of Figure 2C" (id.). "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). In making an obviousness determination one "can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Karam does not indicate that the concept of determining temperature based upon measured voltages and currents is limited to Karam's communications pathway (28), and Karam indicates that compared to using a temperature sensor to measure a cable's outer insulation temperature, determining the conductor's temperature based upon measured voltages and currents provides a more accurate temperature measurement (col. 2, 11. 16- 19, 28-35). Hence, Karam would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to determine Richardson's shunt cable (36)'s temperature based upon measurements of the potential difference across it and the current passing through it. The Appellants assert that "Karam within the context of Richardson would suggest that temperature information used to temperature compensate the current measured by shunt cable 36 be based on the current measured by shunt cable 36, which would of course be problematic because of the circular nature of this technique" (App. Br. 5). 5 Appeal2014-009051 Application 12/423,169 The Appellants do not explain, and it is not apparent, why determining Richardson's shunt cable (36)'s temperature based upon the potential difference across it and the current passing through it and, if that temperature is too high, reducing the current to lower the temperature, would be problematic. Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections over Richardson in view of Karam and over Richardson in view of Karam and Granville. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Karam in view of Granville is reversed. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 6-8, 11, and 13 over Richardson in view of Karam and claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 over Richardson in view of Karam and Granville are affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part. 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-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation