Ex Parte Momcilovich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2017

13546173 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 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.
13/546,173 07/11/2012 Paul Theodore Momcilovich 83228149 5262
28395 7590 02/13/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER CARRASQUILLO, JORGE L
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL THEODORE MOMCILOVICH,
BRUCE CARVELL BLAKEMORE, and ALLAN ROY GALE
Appeal 2015-006331
Application 13/546,173
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 4—8, 10-14, and 16—19 under
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed July 11, 2012, the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed October 31, 2014,
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed February 23, 2015, the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed June 4, 2015, and Appellants’ Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed June 9, 2015.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-006331
Application 13/546,173
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanamori.3’4 We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a method for generating a torque command
for a motor such that a traction battery electrically connected to the motor
outputs a discharge current including a direct current (DC) component for
vehicle propulsion and an alternating current (AC) component to cause the
temperature of the traction battery to increase. Spec. 5 and 6. The AC
component has a frequency between 0 and 300 Hz. Id. at | 6. According to
Appellants, a traction battery’s capability to collect regenerative braking
energy (energy generated by the motor during braking) is limited as the
temperature of the battery falls, especially below freezing. Id. at 14. The
3 WO 2011/070848 Al, published June 16, 2011. The Examiner identifies
and uses, without objection, US 2012/0245781 Al, published September 27,
2012, as a translation (“Kanamori”).
4 We note the Examiner states that every ground of rejection set forth in the
Final Office Action is maintained unless indicated as withdrawn. Ans. 2.
However, the Final Office Action includes a rejection of all pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (pre-AIA), as failing to comply with
the written description requirement based on claim language which the
Examiner found to lack written descriptive support. Final Act. 2—3. In the
After-Final Response of December 14, 2014, Appellants deleted this
language from the claims. However, while the Examiner approved entry of
this deletion in the Advisory Action of January 26, 2015, the Examiner did
not withdraw this rejection. Nonetheless, neither Appellants nor the
Examiner mention or discuss this rejection in the Appeal and Reply Briefs
and the Answer. Accordingly, we deem this rejection withdrawn and not
before us on appeal.
2
Appeal 2015-006331
Application 13/546,173
invention further relates to a vehicle having a motor and a traction battery
implementing the method. Id. at ]f]f 9—10.
Method claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
generating a torque command for a motor such that a traction
battery electrically connected therewith outputs to the motor a
discharge current having (i) a direct current (DC) component for
vehicle propulsion and (ii) an alternating current (AC)
component, selected as a function of a temperature of the battery,
to cause the temperature of the traction battery to increase.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In addition, the Examiner must establish that the
applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an
apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
3
Appeal 2015-006331
Application 13/546,173
This case presents a fundamental disagreement between the Examiner
and Appellants as to what the sole applied reference, Kanamori, teaches
explicitly and implicitly to one of ordinary skill in the art. Kanamori, the
Examiner acknowledges, fails to explicitly teach a discharge current having
both a DC component for vehicle propulsion and an AC component to
increase the temperature of the battery. Final Act. 4. Nonetheless, the
Examiner finds, that Kanamori controls warming of the battery between
drive and regeneration operations performed by charge/discharge of the
battery so as to increase the temperature of the battery with a relatively small
current by making use of only an AC resistance of the battery. Id. at 6—7,
citing Kanamori, Fig. 13 and Tflf 230, 248, and 278; Ans. 2-4.
On the other hand, Appellants contend that Kanamori not only does
not explicitly teach a discharge current having both a DC component for
vehicle propulsion and an AC component to increase battery temperature,
Kanamori also fails to implicitly teach such. Appeal Br. 6. Instead,
Appellants assert that Kanamori warms the battery via charge/discharge
cycling of the battery by switching between drive and regeneration
operations at a defined frequency. Id. at 5. During drive operation,
Appellants assert that the battery is discharging a DC current, and during
regeneration operation, the battery is receiving a charge DC current. Id.
Therefore, Appellants argue that Kanamori’s discharge current does not turn
from positive to negative while in drive operation when the battery is
outputting the discharge current to the motor. Id. at 6. Moreover,
Appellants argue that when Kanamori performs the above charge/discharge
cycling, the discharge current is not producing current for vehicle propulsion
as claim 1 requires. Id. at 6—7 (“the charge/discharge occurs while the
4
Appeal 2015-006331
Application 13/546,173
transmission is in neutral” and “steps ST115 and ST116 occur when the
motor is not connected to the transmission”).
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive of reversible error. Initially, we
note claim 1 requires that the traction battery outputs a discharge current that
has both a DC component for vehicle propulsion and an AC component to
increase battery temperature. As Appellants contend, Kanamori’s
charge/discharge cycling at a defined frequency warms the battery via the
battery’s intrinsic AC resistance. However, while Kanamori’s battery
outputs and receives DC current, such cycling generates the relatively small
AC current which warms the battery. Kanamori, Fig. 13. Yet, this current is
not the result of a discharge current having both DC and AC components,
but is instead a charge/discharge current cycling so as to generate an AC
current. Moreover, the Examiner fails to respond to Appellants’ contention
that because this cycling occurs while the motor is disengaged from
generating torque for vehicle propulsion, Kanamori fails to teach a DC
component for vehicle propulsion, which is adequately supported on the
record. Appeal Br. 6—7; see Kanamori, Figs. 15 (ST113) and 16 (ST133).
Absent any teaching or suggestion of a battery discharge current
having both a DC component for vehicle propulsion and an AC component
to increase battery temperature, the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion
lacks sufficient rational underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”), quoted with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We will not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
5
Appeal 2015-006331
Application 13/546,173
claims. Claims 8 and 14, the remaining independent claims, are directed to a
vehicle and contain a similar limitation as claim 1 that the battery outputs a
discharge current having both a DC current for vehicle propulsion and an
AC component to increase battery temperature. Accordingly, for the same
reasons as given for claim 1 above, we likewise will not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 14, and their respective
dependent claims.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1, 4—8, 10—14, and 16—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kanamori is reversed.
REVERSED
6