Ex Parte Shoytush et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 201612708477 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016) 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. 12/708,477 02/18/2010 Paul J. Shoytush P003900-FCA-CHE 4526 65798 7590 02/18/2016 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 300 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PAUL J. SHOYTUSH and MICHAEL JOSEPH FARMAN1 ____________ Appeal 2014-004583 Application 12/708,477 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 2, and 5 as unpatentable over Oram (US 5,061,898 issued Oct. 29, 1991) and Cohen (US 7,880,438 B1 issued Feb. 1, 2011) and remaining claims 3, 6–12, 14–17, and 20 as unpatentable over these references alone or in combination with additional prior art references. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 General Motors, is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. Appeal 2014-004583 Application 12/708,477 2 We AFFIRM. Appellants claim a system for battery capacity testing comprising: a battery charger 18 for charging a battery 12; a load test resistor 26; a control relay 14 coupled to the battery, the resistor, and the charger; an electronic controller 22 coupled to the battery, resistor, relay and in communication with the charger for calculating the capacity of the battery in ampere-hours at the end of the load testing; and a selectable voltage switch so as to enable the end condition at the end of the load testing to be any voltage desired (independent claim 1, Fig. 1; see also independent claims 9 and 16). The claimed system further comprises a first lead attached to a first battery terminal, a second lead attached to a second battery terminal, and a third lead also attached to the second battery terminal, wherein the first, second, and third leads couple the battery to certain other electrical components of the system (dependent claim 2; see also dependent claim 10). The claimed system additionally comprises a selectable current setting so as to allow the battery to be tested at different currents (dependent claim 5; see also dependent claim 14). A copy of representative claims 1, 2, and 5, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A system for battery capacity testing, said system comprising: a battery charger for charging a battery; a load test resistor; a control relay coupled to the battery, the load test resistor and the battery charger; an electronic controller coupled to the battery, load test resistor and the control relay and further in communication with the battery charger, said electronic controller controlling the battery charger so as to allow the battery to be charged, Appeal 2014-004583 Application 12/708,477 3 wherein the electronic controller allows the battery to be load tested and calculates the capacity of the battery in ampere-hours at the end of the load testing; and a selectable voltage switch so as to enable the end condition at the end of the load testing to be any voltage desired. 2. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a first lead attached to a first terminal of the battery, a second lead attached to a second terminal of the battery, and a third lead also attached to the second terminal of the battery, wherein the first lead couples the battery to the control relay, the second lead couples the battery to the electronic controller and the load test resistor, and the third lead couples the battery to the battery charger. 5. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a selectable current setting so as to allow the battery to be tested at different currents. Appellants present arguments specifically directed to the common limitations recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 16, the common limitations recited in dependent claims 2 and 10, and the common limitations recited in dependent claims 5 and 14 (App. Br. 11–24). In considering these arguments, we need focus only on representative claims 1, 2, and 5. We sustain the § 103 rejections advanced in this appeal based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis. Regarding claim 1, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide Oram with a selectable voltage switch as claimed in view of Cohen (Final Action 3) by arguing that “the test switch Appeal 2014-004583 Application 12/708,477 4 38 of Cohen is just a switch for opening and closing a circuit, and has no selectable voltage function as claimed” (App. Br. 13). According to Appellants, “it is the processor 30 [of Cohen] that is configured to control the test switch 38, such as at a specific voltage” (id.). The Examiner agrees with Appellants’ last quoted statement and determines that it is reasonable and consistent with Appellants’ Specification to interpret the claim 1 limitation under review “as encompassing a switch that enables the end condition of a load testing to be any voltage desired as selected by a processor [i.e., Cohen’s processor 30]” (Ans. 4). Significantly, Appellants reiterate their above argument in the Reply Brief but do not address much less challenge the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 as encompassing the processor-controlled switch 38 of Cohen (see, e.g., Reply Br. 1–2). Under these circumstances, Appellants’ argument lacks persuasive merit. Regarding the Examiner’s finding that Oram discloses first, second, and third leads attached and coupled as recited in claim 2 (Final Action 3–4), Appellants argue that Oram discloses only two leads not three leads including second and third leads which couple the battery in the claimed manner (App. Br. 15–16). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive for the reasons fully detailed by the Examiner (Final Action 3–4 (especially ann. Fig. 1 of Oram at Final Action 4), Ans. 4). Although the Examiner’s reasoning is discussed in the Reply Brief, Appellants’ discussion does not specifically identify any error in the Examiner’s finding that Oram discloses the lead limitations of claim 2 (see Reply Br. 2–3). Finally, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding Oram discloses the claim 5 limitation of a selectable current setting (App. Br. 16). Appeal 2014-004583 Application 12/708,477 5 In response, the Examiner convincingly explains that the limitation is satisfied by Oram’s test loads having different impedance values thereby allowing the battery to be tested at different currents as claimed (Ans. 4–5) and that it is reasonable and consistent with the Specification to interpret claim 5 as encompassing different test loads having different impedances (id. at 5). In their Reply Brief, Appellants do not discuss claim 5 and therefore do not reveal error in the Examiner’s explanation why this claim is satisfied by Oram. For the reasons given by the Examiner and emphasized above, Appellants fail to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal. The decision of the Examiner 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation