Ex Parte Greenwood et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

14386605 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/386,605 09/19/2014
26096 7590 04/02/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeremy Greenwood
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.
67582-040PUSl;JLRll-108US 3316
EXAMINER
TISSOT, ADAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEREMY GREENWOOD and CHRIS CLARKE
Appeal2017-004977
Application 14/386,605
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 17-37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hambitzer (US 2012/0313560 Al, pub. Dec. 13, 2012). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Jaguar Land Rover Limited, as the real party in
interest. App. Brief 1.
Appeal2017-004977
Application 14/386,605
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to automotive battery systems. Spec. 1.
Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1 7. A method of discharging a battery of a vehicle, the
battery having a plurality of cells each adapted to store a
charge, the method comprising:
detecting a vehicle event based on an indication from one or
more sensors, and in response;
discharging the battery utilizing a battery management
system until an electrical characteristic of the battery attains a
predefined threshold value; and
using the battery management system to balance the electric
charge of each of the cells,
wherein the battery management system is arranged to
control the discharge of a first group of the plurality of cells
substantially independently of at least a second group of the
plurality of cells, wherein the or each group of the plurality of
cells comprises one or more cells.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Hambitzer discloses all of the elements of
claim 1 except for the use of a sensor to detect an indication of a vehicle
event. Final Action 5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hambitzer uses
a battery management system to balance the electrical charge in each of the
cells. Id. citing Hambitzer i-f 29. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to use a sensor to detect a vehicle event. Id. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to avoid
damage or destruction of batteries. Id.
2
Appeal2017-004977
Application 14/386,605
Appellants argue that Hambitzer does not teach balancing the electric
charge of the cells. Appeal Br. 3--4. Appellants, however, do not offer a
proposed construction of "balancing," neither do they direct our attention to
any express or implied definition in their Specification. See Appeal Brief,
generally.
In response, the Examiner submits that an appropriate interpretation of
"balance" is "a condition in which different elements are in the correct
proportions." Ans. 4. Thus, according to the Examiner, the act of
"balancing" is "maintaining the correct proportions of different elements."
Id. The Examiner also determines that equating "balanced" with "equal" is
not reasonable. Id.
The Examiner further explains that, applying such construction to the
cited art and the claims, Hambitzer teaches that each battery/cell state of
charge (hereinafter "SOC") is monitored and compared with a reference
value to confirm that each value is within a range from the reference value.
Id. citing Hambitzer i-f 29. The Examiner considers Hambitzer's feature of
monitoring cell SOC and detecting faults when a cell SOC falls outside of a
tolerance range to satisfy the "balance the electric charge" limitation of
claim 17. Ans. 4--5.
In reply, Appellants accuse the Examiner of coining a new definition
for the term "balancing." Reply Br. 1. Appellants argue that the Examiner's
proposed construction is overly broad and unreasonable. Id. at 2.
Appellants now propose their own construction of "balanced," taking the
position that: "[ w ]hen things are balanced, there is a state of equilibrium,
equipoise or equality among the things that are balanced." Id. Whereas
Appellants accuse the Examiner of failing to provide support in the record
3
Appeal2017-004977
Application 14/386,605
for the Examiner's proposed construction, Appellants similarly do not direct
us to any language in the Specification (or anywhere else) that supports
Appellants' competing position. Id.
The dispute between Appellants and the Examiner is largely a matter
of claim construction. During examination of a patent application, pending
claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board's
construction "cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
evidence." In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "Even
when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the
specification may define claim terms by 'implication' such that the meaning
may be 'found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents."'
Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
Appellants' Specification discloses that:
A balancing controller 18 is coupled by connector 28 to control
unit 14, such that upon detection of a vehicle event by sensor 16
the balancing controller instructs the switches S 1, S2, S3 to
close, thereby discharging each cell C2, C3, C4 by dissipating
electric charge as heat across the respective resistors RI, R2,
R3.
Spec. 6; see also id. at 3 (energy dissipation device is active battery
balancer); id. at 7 (balance or regulate the electric charge stored on each
4
Appeal2017-004977
Application 14/386,605
cell); id. at 10 (active battery balancer - to transfer charge between
individual cells to discharge the battery).
In our opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that using the battery management system - "to balance" involves adjusting
and/or controlling the electric state of charge of each cell in relation to the
charge in other cells. In that regard, we adopt neither the Examiner's nor the
Appellants' proposed construction. The Examiner's construction is overly
broad as Hambitzer, in operation, merely passively monitors the state of
charge of the cells and only takes controlling action when a fault is detected.
Even then, the controlling action is essentially limited to bypassing or
disconnecting the faulty battery module. Hambitzer i-fi-132-33.
Correspondingly, Appellants' proposed construction is unduly narrow.
There is no language in the Specification that requires the battery
management system to pursue and achieve "equipoise" among all of the
cells. Appellants do not direct us to any such language and Appellants do
not challenge the Examiner's finding that Appellants fail to operationally
define "balance" or "balancing" in the Specification. See Ans. 3 ("the
Specification does not contain a definition of what it means to 'balance"').
For purposes of this decision, it is sufficient to determine that using
the battery management system "to balance" the electric charge of each of
the cells can be satisfied by reducing or mitigating an imbalance among an
electric charge parameter of the various battery cells. 2 In that regard,
reducing an imbalance from a greater imbalance to a lesser imbalance
2 "[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to
the extent necessary to resolve the controversy." Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
Science & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
5
Appeal2017-004977
Application 14/386,605
involves "balancing" even if equipoise is not achieved. 3 As we construe the
term for purposes of this decision, "balancing" requires more than passive
monitoring of battery cells during operation and then bypassing or
disconnecting a faulty cell.
As the Examiner's conclusion of unpatentability is predicated on an
erroneous claim construction, we do not sustain the Examiner's
unpatentability rejection of claim 17.
Claims 25, 33-35, and 37
Claims 25, 33-35, and 37 are independent claims. Claims App. As
with claim 17, each of these claims contains a limitation directed to
balancing the electric charge among a plurality of battery cells. Id. In
rejecting these claims, the Examiner relies on the same reasoning and
findings of fact that are used in the rejection of claim 1. Final Action 5.
Thus, the rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that was
identified above with respect to claim 17. Accordingly, for essentially the
same reason expressed above in connection with claim 1 7, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 25, 33-35, and 37.
Claims 18-24, 26-32, and 36
These claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of independent
claim 17, 25, 33-35, and 37. Claims App. The rejection of these claims
3 We note that a parameter for evaluating the claimed "electric charge" is not
specified in claim 17, nor is it limited to voltage (see Claims App. claim 9).
Appellants provide no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning that
achieving equipoise as to one electric charge parameter (e.g., voltage) would
necessarily result in a similar state of balance of a different parameter (e.g.,
amp hours). Therefore, the claims allow for differing degrees of relative
balance and imbalance among the various parameters that may be measured,
evaluated, and "balanced."
6
Appeal2017-004977
Application 14/386,605
suffers from the same infirmity that was identified above with respect to
claim 17. Accordingly, for essentially the same reason expressed above in
connection with claim 17, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 18-24,
26-32, and 36.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 17-37 is reversed.
REVERSED
7