Ex Parte MelicharDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 29, 201111081979 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2011) Copy Citation 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. 11/081,979 03/16/2005 Robert Melichar 2671-002US02 6275 27572 7590 03/29/2011 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 828 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 EXAMINER TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2858 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ROBERT MELICHAR ____________ Appeal 2009-008528 Application 11/081,979 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-008528 Application 11/081,979 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-18, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention is directed to a battery control module for a battery system wherein a state of charge (SOC) module is in communication with current and voltage measuring modules to estimate SOC based on a power limit ratio (Abstract). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A battery control module for a battery system, comprising: a voltage measuring module that measures battery voltage; a current measuring module that measures battery current; and a state of charge (SOC) module that communicates with said current and voltage measuring modules and that estimates SOC based on a power limit ratio. The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Thompson US 4,295,097 Oct. 13, 1981 Emori US 2003/0195719 A1 Oct. 16, 2003 Arai US 6,661,231 B1 Dec. 9, 2003 Cawthorne US 6,946,818 B2 Sep. 20, 2005 Claims 1-3 and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Emori and Arai. Appeal 2009-008528 Application 11/081,979 3 Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Emori, Arai, and Cawthorne. Claim 4, 5, 7-9, 13, 14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Emori, Arai, and Thompson.1 Appellant’s Contentions Appellant’s arguments are focused on the rejection of independent claim 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over Emori and Arai because the references, alone or in combination, do not teach generating SOC based on a power ratio (App. Br. 5-8). Appellant specifically argues that Arai mentions SOC in terms of electric power (V×Ah) which refers to electric energy, not electric power (App. Br. 5). Appellant further contends that Arai does not teach or suggest a power limit ratio which is disclosed in paragraph [0037] of Appellant’s Specification as a ratio of power limit (Plim) in charge divided by power limit (–Plim) in discharge (App. Br. 7). ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over Emori and Arai because the combination does not teach or suggest generating SOC based on a power limit ratio? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s 1 Claim 13 was intended to be rejected with this group of claims (Ans. 6), rather than with claim 1 (Ans. 3-4). Appeal 2009-008528 Application 11/081,979 4 conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We understand the Examiner’s position to be based on the teachings of Arai in column 4, lines 39-41, and column 24, lines 50-51 (Ans. 9). The Examiner finds that Arai, in column 1, lines 63-67, discloses the battery capacity in terms of the electrical quantity Ah or ampere-hour (id.). The Examiner concludes that Arai calculates SOC in terms of a ratio of the electric power or V×Ah (id.). With respect to the claim term “a power limit ratio,” the Examiner explains that Arai generates the SOC based on equations that use maximum voltage during charging (Vs) and the maximum voltage during discharging (Ve), which relate to voltage limits resulting in a power limit ratio (Ans. 11-12). After a review of Arai, we agree with the Examiner’s line of reasoning that using the maximum voltage values during charging and discharging results in calculating a ratio of power limits. Arai specifically defines the estimated voltage Vn between the open circuit voltage Vs at the fully charged state and the open circuit voltage Ve at the end of discharge (col. 4, ll. 13-18). Arai further uses the equations in column 4, lines 43-47, for calculating the SOC in terms of a ratio of the electric power (V×Ah), where a ratio of (Vn-Ve)/(Vs-Ve) is used for obtaining the electric power (col. 4, ll. 39-47). Therefore, the calculated electric power ratio is based on a ratio of voltage limits, which produces a ratio of power limits similar to the recited “a power limit ratio.” Appeal 2009-008528 Application 11/081,979 5 We also disagree with Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3-4) that no reason has been provided as to how the teachings of Arai may be modified to arrive at the claimed estimating SOC based on a power limit ratio. As discussed above, Arai provides equations for calculating SOC in terms of a ratio of the electric power or V×Ah including voltage limits that yield power limits in order to estimate the charging capacity of a battery (see Arai; col. 2, ll. 19-28). CONCLUSIONS 1. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over Emori and Arai by showing that the combination teaches or suggests generating SOC based on a power limit ratio. 2. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-18 not argued separately, is sustained. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation