Ex Parte Lovett et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2018

13705264 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/705,264 12/05/2012
28395 7590 08/30/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karin Lovett
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.
83219373 1031
EXAMINER
GRANT, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2018 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 KARIN LOVETT and HILDE ANNE HEREMANS
Appeal2018---001241
Application 13/705,264
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 15-17, 21-25, 27, and 28. (Appeal Br. 2.) We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant/ Applicant is FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, which
is identified as the real party in interest. (Appeal Brief filed June 7, 2017,
hereinafter "Appeal Br.," 1.)
Appeal2018---001241
Application 13/705,264
THE INVENTION
Appellant states that the invention relates to plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles and to a method and apparatus for recharging and refueling of such
vehicles. (Substitute Specification filed September 13, 2016, hereinafter
"Spec.," ,r 1.)
Claim 22, the only independent claim on appeal, as reproduced from
the Claims Appendix, recites:
22. A method for impeding simultaneous electrical charging
and fueling of a vehicle comprising:
detecting whether a fuel door of the vehicle is in a
fueling-permitting condition and whether a charging plug is
engaged with an on-board charger; and
if the fuel door is in the fueling-permitting condition and
the charger is engaged with the plug, preventing the charger
from receiving charging current from the charging plug.
( Appeal Br. Claim Appendix 1.)
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 15-17, 21-25, 27, and 28 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Saito (US 2012/0049565 Al,
published on Mar. 1, 2012), Ichikawa (US 2012/0133326 Al, published on
May 31, 2012); and JP 2007138268 (published on Jan. 25, 2012, English
Translation of Record), hereinafter "JP'268").
(Final Rejection mailed November 7, 2016, hereinafter "Final Act.")
Appellant does not present separate arguments for the claims on
appeal. (See Appeal Br. 4.) Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative, and decide the appeal as to this rejection on claim 1 alone.
(37 C.F.R. §4I .37(c )(1 )(iv).)
2
Appeal2018---001241
Application 13/705,264
ISSUE
The Examiner found that Saito discloses a method of impeding
simultaneous electrical charging and fueling of a vehicle that includes
detecting whether a fuel door of the vehicle is in a fuel-permitting condition.
(Final Act. 3.) The Examiner found that Saito does not expressly disclose
whether a charging plug is engaged with an on-board charger, and if the fuel
door is in the fuel-permitting condition and the charger is engaged with the
plug, preventing the charger from receiving charging current from the
charging plug. (Id.) The Examiner found that Ichikawa discloses
determining whether a charging plug is engaged with an on-board charger,
and that JP'268 discloses if the fuel door is in the fuel-permitting condition
and the charger is engaged with the plug, preventing the charger from
receiving charging current from the charging plug. (Id.)
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to have
utilized the teachings of JP'268 and prevent electrical connection when the
fuel door is open, "in order to prevent an electrical spark which could ignite
the combustible fuel." (Id.) The Examiner stated further in the Answer that
Saito and JP'268 represent different ways of preventing the vehicle from
being filled with fossil fuel and at the same time allowing charging of the
vehicle, which one of ordinary skill in the art would consider in order to
prevent simultaneous charging and fueling of a vehicle. (Examiner's
Answer mailed September 21, 2017, hereinafter "Ans.," 4.)
Appellant contends that Ishikawa does not disclose or suggest
detecting whether a charging plug is engaged with an on-board charger.
(Appeal Br. 2-3.) Appellant argues also that the rejection does not provide
any motivation or reason to combine the features of Saito and Ichikawa, and
3
Appeal2018---001241
Application 13/705,264
only conclusory reasoning for combining JP'268. (Appeal Br. 3--4; Reply
Brief filed November 16, 2017, hereinafter "Reply Br.," 2.)
The dispositive issue in this appeal is: Is the Examiner's conclusion
that it would have been obvious to have combined Saito, Ishikawa, and
JP'268 to arrive at the method recited in claim 22 supported by sufficient
rational underpinnings?
DISCUSSION
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner did
not provide sufficient rationale for the rejection of claim 22. We first
address Appellant's arguments that the combination of prior art is
unsupported by any rationale.
Saito discloses preventing the simultaneous charging and fueling of a
hybrid vehicle, by preventing either the opening of a fuel supply lid that can
open or close a fuel supply recess or a charging lid that can open or close a
charging recess. (Saito ,r,r 9, 29, 31, 47, 48; Figs. 2-3.) JP'268 also
addresses simultaneous charging of a hybrid battery and gas fueling, and
discloses a method where an electrical control unit (ECU) executes a
program detects whether the gas fuel lid is in an open state, and, if so,
electrically disconnecting a battery from the external power supply by
turning off a main relay. (JP'268 Abstract.)
Initially, we observe that although Appellant contends that the
Examiner's reason for combining JP'268 with Saito is "conclusory" (Appeal
Br. 3--4), Appellant does not provide a persuasive argument to support the
position that the Examiner's reasoning for making the combination in order
to prevent an electrical spark which could ignite the combustible fuel is
4
Appeal2018---001241
Application 13/705,264
deficient. In this regard, Appellant's argument pertaining to Ichikawa
individually does not consider the rejection as a whole, which relies also on
Saito and JP'268. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, as pointed out by the Examiner, the methods disclosed in
Saito and JP'268 represent alternatives for dealing with problems related to
simultaneous charging and fueling of hybrid vehicles, and, as such, amounts
to more than the predictable result of a combination of familiar elements
according to known methods. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416-17 (2007). "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and
a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill." Id. at 417. Thus, we are of the
view that the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the method of JP'268 to have
prevented simultaneous charging of the hybrid battery and gas fueling is
supported by sufficient rational underpinnings.
Regarding Appellant's argument that Ishikawa does not disclose or
suggest detecting whether a charging plug is engaged with an on-board
charger, and that there is no motivation to combine such disclosures to
suggest the desirability of detecting whether a charging plug is engaged with
an on-board charger, we first observe that there is no dispute that connecting
a power supply to a hybrid vehicle through an on-board charger was well-
known at the time of the invention. (See Saito ,r 23, Fig. 1; Ichikawa ,r 52,
Fig. 2; Spec. ,r 17 .) Therefore, in order to employ the method of JP'286, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have had to provide for the ability for the
5
Appeal2018---001241
Application 13/705,264
ECU to detect whether the battery and, thus, the on-board charger, of the
hybrid vehicle is engaged with the charging plug in order to electrically
disconnect the battery from the external power supply by turning off a main
relay.
The Examiner cited to Ichikawa in order to provide evidence that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to provide for such an
arrangement. (Final Act. 3, citing Ichikawa ,r 66; Ans. 3, citing Ichikawa
Figs. 2-3.) Appellant's contention is that the portion of Ichikawa relied on
by the Examiner discloses that the CPL T signal generated in the charging
cable bypasses the on-board charger, and is used to detect the rated current
that can be supplied from the external power supply and not whether the on-
board charger is engaged with the charging plug. (Appeal Br. 3, citing
Ichikawa ,r 55.) The Examiner acknowledges that Ichikawa does not
expressly state that the purpose of the ECU is to detect that the charging
plug is engaged with the on-board charger. (Ans. 3.) However, the
Examiner's position is that the pilot signal that comes from the circuit board
that is part of the charging cable and detected by the ECU provides an
indication that charging plug is engaged with the on-board charger. (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner that the control signal received by the
ECU in Ichikawa would provide a means to detect whether the on-board
charger, which is connected to power supply inlet (Ishikawa ,r,r 51, 52, Figs.
2, 3), is engaged with the external charging plug. The ability of the ECU to
receive such information is a result of the external power supply being
connected to the charging inlet. (J d.)
Moreover, as discussed above, we are of the view that one of ordinary
skill in the art in considering the prior art as a whole, would have understood
6
Appeal2018---001241
Application 13/705,264
that the method of preventing simultaneous fueling and charging disclosed
in JP'268 would involve detection of whether the on-board charger is
connected to the power supply inlet, which as Ichikawa informs, would have
been a modification within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner did
not provide sufficient motivation and relied on hindsight in order to support
the rejection. (Reply Br. 2-3.)
As a result, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 as obvious
over Saito, Ishikawa, and JP'268, as well as the Examiner's rejection of
claims 15-17, 21, 23-25, 27, and 28, which depend from claim 22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in determining that it would have been obvious
to have combined Saito, Ishikawa, and JP'268 to arrive at the method recited
in claim 22.
ORDER
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-17, 21-25, 27,
and 28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7