Ex Parte Ishikawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2017

13643586 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2017)

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.
13/643,586 10/26/2012 Satoshi Ishikawa Q143150 2170
65565 7590
SUGHRUE-265550
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213
EXAMINER
MCDONNOUGH, COURTNEY G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2866
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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):
SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SATOSHIISHIKAWA
Appeal 2016-005479
Application 13/643,586
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005479
Application 13/643,586
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-5. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a voltage detection device that
detects a cell voltage of a fuel cell and is capable of measuring the cell
voltage even when fuel is not supplied to the cell (Spec. ^ 1).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A voltage detection device for detecting an output
voltage of a fuel cell in which a plurality of cells are connected
in series to output a desired voltage, wherein the plurality of
cells are classified into N blocks, each block including at least
one cell, wherein N2 > 2, the voltage detection device
comprising:
voltage detection sections that are provided for the blocks
respectively and measure cell voltages in the blocks;
a control section that is connected to the voltage
detection sections through a communication line, outputs a
voltage detection instruction to the respective voltage detection
sections, and receives a voltage detection signal transmitted
from each of the voltage detection sections; and
M converters that raise the voltage, which is supplied
from a DC power source, to a voltage of a driving power source
for the voltage detection section, wherein M < N-l,
wherein each of the converters is connected in a one to
one connection to arbitrary M blocks among the N blocks;
wherein the control section supplies power from each of the
converters to the voltage detection section of the block
corresponding to each of the converters to operate the voltage
detection section when the output of the fuel cell is initiated,
and in a case where a voltage that is detected by at least one
voltage detection section among the respective voltage
detection sections which operate by the power supplied from
the respective converters, exceeds a predetermined threshold
value, the control section controls at least one voltage detection
section among the voltage detection sections provided to the
respective blocks to operate using the cell voltage of each of the
2
Appeal 2016-005479
Application 13/643,586
blocks as a driving power source for the at least one voltage
detection section and acquires the cell voltage in each of the
blocks.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
1. Claims 1, and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Minoda et al. (US 2010/0188093 Al, published
July 29, 2010) in view of Iwabuchi et al. (US 7,126,342 B2, issued
Oct. 24, 2006).
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Minoda in view of Iwabuchi and Komatsu (US 2010/0038962 Al,
published Feb. 18, 2010).
Appellant argues the following groupings of the claims: (1) Claim 1 and
(2) Claims 3 and 4. Claims 2 and 5 will stand or fall with our analysis of the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
CLAIM 1
Appellant argues that Minoda fails to teach the claim limitation that
requires a control section which, if the power exceeds a predetermined
threshold, controls the voltage detection section to operate by voltage
provided by the cell voltage of each of the blocks of fuel cells as a driving
power source (Br. 8). Appellant contends that Minoda does not determine
whether a voltage that is detected by at least one voltage detection section
exceeds a predetermined threshold value as recited in claim 1 (Br. 8).
3
Appeal 2016-005479
Application 13/643,586
Appellant argues that Minoda only teaches comparing the voltages at diode
D1 (cell voltage) and diode D2 (auxiliary power supply voltage) and sending
the higher voltage to power the voltage detection circuit {id.). Appellant
contends that Minoda fails to suggest a control section that supplies power
by comparing the supplied power to a threshold voltage {id. at 9). Appellant
argues that Minoda teaches away from using a determining circuit to
compare the supplied voltage to a threshold voltage because Minoda
eliminates the necessity of using a determining circuit for determining the
decrease in the output voltage of the fuel cell {id.).
The Examiner finds that Minoda teaches comparing the fuel cell stack
voltage at D1 to the auxiliary battery voltage D2 (Ans. 3). The Examiner
finds that Minoda’s diode circuit decides which voltage to use to power the
voltage detector {id.). The Examiner finds that the comparison between the
voltages at diodes D1 and D2 constitutes a comparison with threshold
voltage value {id.). The Examiner’s findings are supported by Minoda’s
disclosure that at start-up of the fuel cell the output voltage of the fuel cell
stacks are lower than the output voltage of the auxiliary power supply
(Minoda ^ 35; Fig. 2). Minoda’s Figure 2 shows that the output of the
auxiliary power supply is constant. Therefore, the comparison made by
Minoda’s circuit at diodes D1 and D2 constitutes a comparison of the fuel
cell voltage with a threshold voltage value (i.e., the constant voltage from
the auxiliary power supply). Appellant’s argument that Minoda teaches
away from using a determining circuit to determine the decrease in voltage
coming from the fuel cells is not persuasive because Minoda teaches a
determining circuit that compares the fuel cell voltage to a threshold voltage
(i.e., the constant voltage from auxiliary power supply).
4
Appeal 2016-005479
Application 13/643,586
Appellant argues that modifying Minoda’s voltage detecting structure
so that the number of converters satisfies the inequality M < N-l as taught
by Iwabuchi would have rendered Minoda unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose (Br. 10-11). Appellant contends that Minoda requires a one-on-one
correspondence between the voltage detectors and the DC-DC converters 40
(id. at 12). Appellant argues that Minoda requires a separate converter for
each of the voltage detectors 3n because the negative terminal of the blocks
have different potentials (id.).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed by
the Examiner on page 5 of the Answer. Although Minoda discloses that the
potential at the negative electrode for each fuel cell block are different from
each other, such a teaching would not have rendered Minoda’s device that
incorporates Iwabuchi’s single converter in lieu of a separate DC-DC
converter for each voltage unsatisfactory for its intended use. The Examiner
finds that Minoda teaches at paragraph 64 that the negative terminal of the
block 13, the DC-DC converter 40 and the negative terminal of the voltage
detector 90 may be operated at the same potential within each block of fuel
cells 13 (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Iwabuchi teaches that the
converter 30 is connected sequentially to the voltage measurement circuits
one at a time (id. at 8). In other words, once Minoda is modified to use a
single converter as taught by Iwabuchi, the voltage detection would occur
individually at each block of fuel cells. This finding is supported by
Iwabuchi’s teaching that signals are sent in a cascading fashion so that the
converter measures the voltage at each block sequentially (Iwabuchi, col. 8,
11. 45-67; col. 9,11. 27-29). Moreover, Minoda teaches that the potential at
the negative terminal of the fuel cell block 13 and the converter 40 are made
5
Appeal 2016-005479
Application 13/643,586
to have the same potential for each block (Minoda ^ 64). Accordingly, using
a single converter as in Iwabuchi in Minoda’s voltage detector would not
have rendered Minoda unsatisfactory for its intended use.
Appellant argues that using Iwabuchi’s single converter in lieu of
Minoda’s multiple converters would have changed Minoda’s principle of
operation (Br. 13-14). Appellant contends that using a single converter in
Minoda would have made Minoda’s device incapable of supplying power to
converters having different potentials at the negative terminals as required
by Minoda {id. at 14). The Examiner finds, however, that Iwabuchi teaches
connecting sequentially the converter to the voltage measuring circuits one
at a time such that the converter output would accommodate the block of
cells it is attached to at that time (Ans. 7-8). Contrary to Appellant’s
argument, Minoda teaches to make the voltage potential at the block and
converters the same (Minoda ^ 64). Minoda’s principle of operation,
detecting voltage in a fuel cell, would not have been changed by using a
single converter as taught by Iwabuchi.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections over claims 1, 2 and 5.
CLAIMS 3 & 4
Appellant argues that Minoda requires that the driving power sources
operate independently because Minoda requires a separate converter for each
of the voltage detectors (Br. 16). Appellant contends that the negative
terminals of the blocks have different potentials that require the use of
separate converters {id.). Appellant argue that claims 3 and 4 require that
the driving power sources of all of the voltage detection sections are
6
Appeal 2016-005479
Application 13/643,586
operated simultaneously using the cell voltage of the block (Br. 16).
Appellant contends that any attempt to modify Minoda would have rendered
the independently controlled driving power sources of Minoda inoperable
for their intended purpose {id.).
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the number of
converters is one, and in a case where the voltage which is detected by the
voltage detection section to which the converter is connected exceeds the
predetermined threshold value, the control section controls all the voltage
detection sections to operate by using the cell voltage of each of the blocks
as the driving power source.”
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites “the number of converters
is one, and in a case where the voltage which is detected by the voltage
detection section to which the converter is connected exceeds the
predetermined threshold value, the control section controls all of the voltage
detection sections except for the voltage detection section to which the
converter is connected to operate by using the cell voltage of each of the
blocks as the driving power source.”
The Examiner finds that the subject matter of claims 3 and 4 would
have flowed naturally from the combination of Minoda and Iwabuchi (Ans.
9). The Examiner finds and Appellant does not dispute, that the output
voltage of the fuel cell would have to be larger than the voltage at diode D2
since no voltage is being provided by the DC-DC converter 40 to other
voltage detectors 90 {id.). In other words, the voltage from the cells at diode
D1 would be higher than the zero voltage being provided to diode D2 such
that Minoda’s voltage regulator would have operated by using the cell
7
Appeal 2016-005479
Application 13/643,586
voltage. Implicit in the Examiner’s findings is that the cell block connected
to the converter and auxiliary power source at a particular time would run
off the auxiliary power source {id.). Because Appellant has not shown
reversible error with the Examiner’s findings, we find that the
preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“It has been
the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in
the examiner’s rejections ....”). We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 3 and 4.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l)(iv).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
8