Ex Parte Sawyers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2017

13202032 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 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.
13/202,032 08/17/2011 Thomas Sawyers 82762352 5094
22879
HP Tnr
7590 01/25/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
CASSITY, ROBERT A
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2115
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS SAWYERS
Appeal 2016-003309
Application 13/202,0321
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—6 and 8—19, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP
(“HPDC”) as the real party in interest. HPDC is a wholly-owned affiliate of
Hewlett-Packard Company. The general or managing partner of HPDC is
HPQ Holdings, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003309
Application 13/202,032
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to a computer that
includes a battery with a fuel gauge that reports voltage and current input to
charge the battery while the computer is in an off-state so the computer can
calculate input power while the computer is in an on-state.” Spec. 1:1—4.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer, comprising:
a battery including a fuel gauge that reports voltage and
current input to charge the battery while the computer is in an
off-state;
a current sense resistor to measure a current supplied to the
computer from an alternating current (AC) adapter;
an amplifier to read the current measured by the current
sense resistor and generate a signal representing the current
measured by the current sense resistor; and
a controller to receive the signal generated by the amplifier
and information about the voltage and current input to charge the
battery from the fuel gauge, wherein the controller is to use the
received signal and information to calculate power being input to
the computer while the computer is in an on-state, and
wherein the controller is to use correction factors relating
to errors in amplifier gain and errors in amplifier offset to correct
readings made by the amplifier.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Sawyers US 2003/0126474 A1 July 3, 2003
Maireanu US 2007/0096697 A1 May 3, 2007
Elias US 2008/0054847 A1 Mar. 6, 2008
Verdun US 2010/0063755 A1 Mar. 11,2010
2
Appeal 2016-003309
Application 13/202,032
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6, 8—16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Verdun in view of Sawyers and
Maireanu. Final Act. 2-5.2
Claim 17 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Verdun in view of Sawyers, Maireanu, and Elias. Final
Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims, and
we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2—6), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 12—13). We incorporate
such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise
noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
2 We note the Final Action incorporates by reference “[t]he teachings of
Verdun, Sawyers, and Maireanu from the previous office action,” a Non-
Final Action mailed December 4, 2014 (hereinafter “Non-Final Act.”). Final
Act. 2.
3
Appeal 2016-003309
Application 13/202,032
Claims 1, 3—6, 8—11, 13—16, 18, and 19
Appellant argues that Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art
teaches “wherein the controller is to use correction factors relating to errors
in amplifier gain and errors in amplifier offset to correct readings made by
the amplifier,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 4—6.
Specifically, Appellant argues Verdun “does not include correcting the
readings made by an amplifier, let alone correcting the readings made by an
amplifier using correction factors relating to errors in amplifier gain and
errors in amplifier offset.” App. Br. 9. Appellant further argues that
although “Maireanu relates to predicting the capacity of a battery,” it does
not teach or suggest “correcting the reading made by an amplifier.” App.
Br. 10. Appellant also argues “using ‘current correction’ and ‘battery
temperature correction’ to predict the remaining capacity of a battery, as
discussed in Maireanu, is not the same as using correction factors relating to
errors in amplifier gain and offset to correct readings made by the
amplifier.” Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of the teachings of Verdun and
Maireanu teach or suggest the wherein limitation recited in claim 1. Final
Act. 2—3. The Examiner further finds “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art
would have motivation to include the correction circuitry in Maireanu with
the power measurement method of Verdun and Sawyers to correct for error
introduced by the circuitry used for charging the battery and measuring the
voltage into the computer.” Final Act. 4.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
4
Appeal 2016-003309
Application 13/202,032
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellant’s arguments are directed to the
references individually and not the combined teachings of those references
as applied by the Examiner, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument
that the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 8 and 15, which are argued on the same
grounds, and the rejections of claims 3—6, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19,
which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 11.
Claims 2 and 12
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art
teaches “a voltage divider to provide to the controller a signal representing a
voltage supplied to the computer from the AC adapter,” as recited in claims
2 and 12. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6—7. More particularly, Appellant argues
the Examiner erred in finding Maireanu’s Figure 1 teaches a voltage divider
because paragraphs 22 and 27 “do[] not mention any voltage divider.” App.
Br. 12. Appellant also argues one skilled in the art would not consider “a
charger to charge a battery” a voltage divider. Id. Appellant further argues
the Examiner erred in finding charger 110 to “represent a voltage supplied
from an AC adaptor.” Id.
The Examiner finds Maireanu’s Figure 1 teaches an AC power source
(item 110) and that the circuitry between the amplifier 132 and multiplexer
5
Appeal 2016-003309
Application 13/202,032
170 divides the voltage. Non-Final Act. 9; Ans. 13. More particularly, the
Examiner finds “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the
computer may be powered either from the charger 110 (AC power) or the
battery pack 120 [Fig 1]” and that either the charger or battery pack may
provide the power for the computer and battery gauge circuit. Ans. 13. The
Examiner further finds that “circuitry including the coefficient generators
141—151, effectively divide the voltage from the amplifier 132 before
supplying the corrected voltage to the controller 170 [Fig 1].” Id.
There is no requirement in an obviousness analysis for the prior art to
“contain a description of the subject matter of the appealed claim in
ipsissimis verbis.” In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding
Maireanu not using the phrase “voltage divider.” The Examiner finds
circuitry shown in Maireanu’s Figure 1 divides the voltage and Appellant
has not persuasively argued the Examiner erred.
We also agree with the Examiner that Maireanu teaches the claimed
AC adaptor. Maireanu’s Figure 1 shows a charger 110, which a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand to be an AC adapter. See In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (holding “it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom”); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding
that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art”). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred.
6
Appeal 2016-003309
Application 13/202,032
In the Reply Brief, Appellant states that “the Examiner asserts that the
‘the coefficient generators 141—151 effectively divide the voltage from the
amplifier 132’” and that, therefore, the Examiner is equating “the coefficient
generators 141—151 of Maireanu to the ‘voltage divider’ recited in claim 2.”
Reply Br. 7. Appellant relies on that understanding of the Examiner’s
finding in arguing the Examiner erred. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. Appellant’s Reply Brief crops the Examiner’s finding. Specifically,
the Examiner finds as follows: “However, the circuitry including the
coefficient generators 141 - 151, effectively divide the voltage from the
amplifier 132 before supplying the corrected voltage to the controller 170
[Fig 1].'” Ans. 13 (cropped language emphasized). As the cropped language
makes clear, the Examiner is not relying on the coefficient generators alone,
but the entire circuit between amplifier 132 and the controller 170.
Finally, Appellant also argues in the Reply Brief that the multiplexer
170, which ultimately receives the signal, cannot be the claimed “controller”
because it simply multiplexes. Reply Br. 6—7. Appellant’s Opening Brief
argues the same limitation, but focuses on the voltage divider, not the
controller that receives the divided voltage. Because Appellant did not raise
that argument in his opening brief and good cause has not been shown why
it should be considered, we will not consider this argument. 37 C.F.R.
§41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments
that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the
Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
7
Appeal 2016-003309
Application 13/202,032
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, along
with the rejection of claim 12, which is argued on the same grounds. See
App. Br. 12.
Claim 17
With respect to dependent claim 17, Appellant merely contends that
because the additional reference used in the rejection of that claim (Elias)
does not cure the shortcomings of the other references applied against claim
15, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these
claims. App. Br. 13. Because we determine that the rejection of claim 15 is
not erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of
these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—6 and 8—19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8