Ex Parte Kintner-Meyer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

12466312 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
12/466,312 05/14/2009 Michael Kintner-Meyer 16206-E (BA4-360) 5593
48293 7590 09/22/2017
Wells St. John P.S.
601 W. Main Avenue
Suite 600
Spokane, WA 99201-0613
EXAMINER
CHEN, GEORGE YUNG CHIEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL KINTNER-MEYER
____________

Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUNG H. BUI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 15–20, 30–35, 37–39, and 41–48, which are all of the
pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[b]attery charging control methods”
including “accessing price information for electrical energy supplied by an
electrical power distribution system and controlling an adjustment of an
amount of the electrical energy from the electrical power distribution system
used to charge a rechargeable battery at different moments in time using the
price information.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, exemplifies the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A battery charging method comprising:
using circuitry, accessing price information of electrical
energy supplied by an electrical power distribution system;
charging a rechargeable battery using the electrical energy;
using circuitry, controlling an adjustment of an amount of the
electrical energy from the electrical power distribution system
which is used to charge the rechargeable battery at different
moments in time using the price information, wherein the
accessing comprises receiving the price information from the
electrical power distribution system; and

1 Appellant identifies Battelle Memorial Institute as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 5.)
2 Claims 21, 24–26, 28, 29, and 36 were canceled after the Appeal Brief was
filed, in a May 17, 2016 Amendment. Corresponding rejections have been
withdrawn. (See Ans. 6.)
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

3
using circuitry, determining an anticipated amount of time to
charge the rechargeable battery based on a current state of charge
of the rechargeable battery and wherein the controlling
comprises controlling using the determined anticipated amount
of time.

THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sims US 5,467,006 Nov. 14, 1995
Bohrer et al. US 2006/0036350 A1 Feb. 16, 2006
Torre-Bueno US 2006/0278449 A1 Dec. 14, 2006
Bergveld et al. US 2008/0150491 Al June 26, 2008
Zhu et al. US 2008/0236181 Al Oct. 2, 2008
Kelty et al. US 2009/0021218 Al Jan. 22, 2009
DeVault US 2009/0114463 Al May 7, 2009
Fincham et al. US 2010/0017249 Al Jan. 21, 2010
Pollack et al. US 2011/0004358 Al Jan. 6, 2011

THE REJECTIONS3
1. Claims 1, 10, 30–33, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Torre-Bueno and Bohrer. (See Final Act. 3–
9.)
2. Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Torre-Bueno, Bohrer, and Sims. (See Final Act. 9–10.)

3 Rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 15–21, 24–26, 28–39, and 41–48 under
Section 101 have been withdrawn. (See Ans. 2.)
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

4
3. Claims 12, 15–19, 39, 41–44, and 46–47 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Torre-Bueno and Sims. (See Final
Act. 10–22.)
4. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Torre-Bueno, Sims, and Bohrer. (See Final Act. 22–23.)
5. Claims 21, 24–26, 28, 29, and 36 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Torre-Bueno and DeVault. (See Final
Act. 23–28.)
6. Claims 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Torre-Bueno, Bohrer, and Kelty. (See Final Act. 28–30.)
7. Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Torre-Bueno, Sims, Fincham, and Pollack. (See Final
Act. 30–31.)
8. Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Torre-Bueno, Sims, and Zhu. (See Final Act. 31–32.)
9. Claim 48 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Torre-Bueno, Sims, and Bergveld. (See Final Act. 32–
33.)

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the claims obvious in view of Torre-Bueno in
combination with one or more other references, as listed above. Appellant
offers a series of arguments as to why the claims are patentable over the art,
which they denote A–S. We address Appellant’s arguments in the order
presented, omitting arguments A–E, I, and O, which pertain to rejections that
have now been withdrawn.
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

5
Argument F: Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, and 30–33
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “determining an anticipated amount of time
to charge the rechargeable battery based on a current state of charge of the
rechargeable battery.”
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds this subject matter in
paragraph 36 of Torre-Bueno. In the Answer, the Examiner cites paragraphs
34–36, finding them collectively to disclose “controlling charges based on
decision of whether car can be recharged from sunlight in the time available
and controller decides if it needs draw additional power from the grid.”
(Ans. 2.) The Examiner additionally cites paragraphs 33–35 of Torre-
Bueno, finding them to disclose “other rules such as based on current state
of charge, including using a departure time to determine the optimum timing
of charging the battery, of which it is implicit that the system determines the
anticipated amount of time to charge the battery based on the current
charge.” (Id. at 3.)
Appellant argues the “teachings of paragraphs 33-35 as well as
paragraph 36 are void of any reference regarding state of charge of a battery
or use thereof to make decisions regarding charging.” (Reply Br. 2.)
Appellant additionally argues “the claimed limitations do not necessarily
flow from the prior art teachings and the prior art rejection is in error.” (Id.
at 4.) In particular, Appellant asserts “[t]here are other alternatives in which
the system of Torre-Bueno may operate as opposed to the limitations recited
in claim 1 which uses state of charge” and “[f]or example, some battery
configurations don’t accept additional charge after they are fully charged so
there is no need to use state of charge information in such arrangements, that
is, other control arrangements could make the decision to charge based on
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

6
rates and leave it up to the battery to determine whether the charging energy
is accepted without use of information regarding state of charge.” (Id. at 4.)
We agree with the Examiner. The cited portions of Torre-Bueno
describe a system that includes considering the next time the vehicle will be
used and selecting a charging schedule to ensure that the battery will have a
sufficient charge when needed. We agree that such an approach would
require using “a current state of charge of the rechargeable battery,” namely
the state before charging begins, so the system can determine how long it
will take to get to the required charge level. Appellant’s assertions that
“some battery configurations don’t accept additional charge after they are
fully charged” and “other control arrangements could . . . leave it up to the
battery to determine whether the charging energy is accepted” do not address
the fact the Torre-Bueno’s system is determining how long it will take to
reach a particular level (e.g., that required to reach a hospital). In order to
determine how long it will take to reach a certain level, the system must
know the starting point.
Because we find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive, we sustain the
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 10, and 30–33.
Argument G: Claims 12, 15, 16, 37, and 47
Claim 12 recites, inter alia, “accessing information regarding a
current state of charge of the rechargeable battery.” Appellant first makes
essentially the same argument as made for claim 1, which we find
unpersuasive for the reasons explained above.
Claim 12 also recites “controlling an amount of the electrical energy
consumed by the charging of the electrical vehicle at different moments in
time using the information regarding the current state of charge of the
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

7
rechargeable battery.” We agree with the Examiner that this also is taught or
suggested in Torre-Bueno. For example, in the example cited above, the
charging stops when the level of charge is sufficient to reach the nearest
hospital. The system is thus using information regarding the current state of
charge of the rechargeable battery, i.e., whether it is above or below the level
required to reach the hospital, to “control[] an amount of the electrical
energy consumed by the charging of the electrical vehicle,” i.e., deliver
energy when below the required level and deliver none when above the
required level.
We accordingly sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim 12, as well
as the same rejection of claims 15, 16, 37, and 47, not argued separately.
Argument H: Claims 17–19, 39, and 41–44
Claim 17 recites, inter alia, “processing circuitry configured to . . .
access information regarding a capacity of a rechargeable battery.”
The Examiner finds that Torre-Bueno’s “information needed for [the]
algorithm to determine if battery should be brought up to a minimum level
as soon as possible . . . can be reasonably interpreted as the ‘information
regarding a capacity of a rechargeable battery’ in the claim.” (Ans. 4.) The
Examiner further finds that “Torre-Bueno also teaches ‘delay fully
recharging the battery’ which also requires capacity information.” (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph 33 of Torre-Bueno describes
how the algorithm might “require bringing the battery up to some minimal
charge (for instance enough to get to the nearest hospital) as quickly as
possible and then doing the rest of the charging during off peak rates,”
which requires “access[ing] information regarding a capacity of a
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

8
rechargeable battery,” as claimed. We note that “a capacity” need not be the
maximum capacity.
We accordingly sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim 17, as well
as the same rejection of claims 18, 19, 39, and 41–44, not argued separately.
Argument J: Claim 45
Claim 45 recites that “accessing comprises accessing the price
information including one or more projected prices of the electrical energy
over a future period of time.”
The Examiner cites paragraph 33 of Torre-Bueno, which describes
how “[i]f the driver enters the time they next expected to [drive] and the
controller had access to data on electricity rates, it might calculate that rates
would go lower before the time the driver next needed the car and therefore
the optimum behavior might be to delay fully recharging the battery until
rates go down.”
Appellants argue “these teachings disclose that the controller might
calculate that rates would go lower before the time the driver next needed
the car which fails to teach or suggest the above-recited limitations regarding
accessing projected prices of the electrical energy or controlling the
adjustment of the amount of energy used to charge the battery based on the
one or more projected prices at respective moments of the future period of
time as claimed.” (App. Br. 26, emphasis omitted.)
We agree with the Examiner. The cited portions of Torre-Bueno
describe accessing future prices as part of controlling the charging, as
claimed. The Section 103 rejection of claim 45 is, therefore, sustained.
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

9
Argument K: Claim 46
Claim 46 recites “processing circuitry configured to . . . access
information regarding a current state of charge of the rechargeable battery.”
As explained in connection with claim 1, we agree that this concept is taught
in Torre-Bueno and, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 46.
Argument L: Claim 19
Claim 19 recites “the price information includes one or more
projected prices over a future period of time and the processing circuitry is
configured to control the adjustment based on the one or more projected
prices at respective moments of the future period of time.” As explained in
connection with claim 45, we agree that this concept is taught in Torre-
Bueno and, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 19.
Argument M: Claim 20
Claim 20 recites “the processing circuitry is configured to receive an
update changing one of the one or more projected prices and to control the
adjustment of the amount of the electrical energy as a result of receiving the
update.”
The Examiner finds that Torre-Bueno receives prices, as explained
above, that Bohrer teaches that prices are updated, and that “it would have
been obvious . . . to combine updating price used by controller with the time
of use electricity price structure Torre-Bueno and Sims for the purpose to
receive current price.” (Final Act. 22–23.)
Appellant argues Bohrer fails to disclose or suggest the claim
limitations “the price information including one or more projected prices
over a future period of time” and “receiving an update changing one of the
projected prices in combination with processing circuitry configured to
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

10
control the adjustment of the amount of the electrical energy used to charge
the battery as a result of receiving the update.” (App. Br. 31, emphasis
omitted.)
We agree with the Examiner. The combination includes the use of
prices to control the charging (as in Torre-Bueno) and updating the prices
(as in Bohrer). The Section 103 rejection of claim 20 is sustained.
Argument N: Claim 31
Claim 31 recites that “the controlling comprises optimizing a cost of
the charging using a constraint equation involving the time intervals.”
The Examiner finds this feature in Torre-Bueno, citing paragraph 33
as showing “the algorithm might be modified to require bringing the battery
up to some minimal charge as quickly as possible and then doing the rest of
the charging during off-peak rates.” (Final Act. 6.)
Appellant argues “[t]he teachings in paragraph 33 . . . disclose
bringing a pure hybrid which cannot be used if the battery is discharged up
to a minimal charge” and “[t]hese teachings are void of any disclosure or
suggestion of a constraint equation or plural time intervals.” (App. Br. 32.)
We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph 33 of Torre-Bueno states that
“the algorithm might be modified to require bringing the battery up to some
minimal charge (for instance enough to get to the nearest hospital) as
quickly as possible and then doing the rest of the charging during off peak
rates.” This does teach optimizing cost using a constraint equation (the
algorithm) involving time intervals, as it describes charging to a minimal
charge in a first time interval (with higher rates) and then fully charging in a
second time interval (with lower rates).
The Section 103 rejection of claim 32 is sustained.
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

11
Argument P: Claim 43
Claim 43 recites that the processing circuitry is “configured to control
the adjustment of the amount of the electrical energy used to charge the
rechargeable battery using information regarding a current state of charge of
the rechargeable battery and information regarding a rate at which the
battery charging apparatus can receive electrical energy from the electrical
power distribution system.”
We agree that the combination teaches or suggests using “information
regarding a current state of charge” and “information regarding a rate at
which the battery charging apparatus can receive electrical energy” for the
reasons described in connection with arguments F–H and, therefore, sustain
the Section 103 rejection of claim 43.
Argument Q: Claim 44
Claim 44 recites that “the processing circuitry is configured to control
the adjustment of the amount of the electrical energy used to charge the
rechargeable battery using information regarding an initial state of charge of
the rechargeable battery and a desired state of charge at a user-specified time
in the future.”
We agree that the combination teaches or suggests using “information
regarding an initial state of charge” and “information regarding . . . a desired
state of charge” for the reasons described in connection with arguments F–H
and, therefore, sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim 44.
Argument R: Claim 47
Claim 47 recites that “the accessed information regarding the current
state of charge of the electrical vehicle indicates an amount of electrical
energy stored within at least one rechargeable battery of the electrical
Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

12
vehicle with respect to a maximum amount of energy which can be stored
within the at least one rechargeable battery.”
We agree that the combination teaches or suggests “information
regarding the current state of charge of the electrical vehicle indicat[ing] an
amount of electrical energy stored within at least one rechargeable battery of
the electrical vehicle with respect to a maximum amount of energy which
can be stored within the at least one rechargeable battery,” e.g., a percentage,
for the reasons stated by the Examiner (see Ans. 7). We accordingly sustain
the Section 103 rejection of claim 47.
Argument S: Claim 48
Claim 48 recites that “the information regarding the capacity of the
rechargeable battery which is used by the processing circuitry to control the
adjustment of the amount of the electrical energy indicates a maximum
amount of electrical energy which is capable of being stored using the
rechargeable battery.”
We agree that the combination teaches or suggests that the
“information regarding the capacity of the rechargeable battery . . . indicates
a maximum amount of electrical energy which is capable of being stored
using the rechargeable battery,” for the reasons stated by the Examiner,
namely that such information would be required in Torre-Bueno’s method,
which involves determining whether to “delay fully recharging the battery”
and involves “doing the rest of the charging during off peak rates.” (Torre-
Bueno ¶¶ 33–34.) We accordingly sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim
48.

Appeal 2016-007871
Application 12/466,312

13
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 15–20, 30–35, 37–39, and 41–
48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are 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