Ex Parte Melichar

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2011

11081979 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2011)

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