Ex Parte Tran et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 201412400302 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TUYEN QUOC TRAN and BENJAMIN A. TABATOWSKI-BUSH ____________ Appeal 2012-005413 Application 12/400,302 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005413 Application 12/400,302 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellants’ invention is directed to a a power system for an automotive vehicle. Claim 1 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is reproduced below: 1. A power system for an automotive vehicle comprising: a plurality of power storage units; a multiplexer electrically connected with the power storage units; and a switching converter electrically connected with the multiplexer and configured to selectively operate in a flyback mode or a forward mode. Appellants, App. Br. 3, request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office action1: Claims 1-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph. Claims 1-17 rejected under 35 § U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shimane (US 6,923,279 B2 issued August 2, 2005). OPINION Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph The Examiner asserts that claim 1 is indefinite because the term multiplexer is indefinite. The Examiner specifically states: “the term ‘multiplexer’ refers to a specific circuit in the art whereas Applicant's ‘multiplexer’ is NOT such known multiplexer (see 14, fig 1 comprising switch circuits 26 of fig 2, alleged to be a ‘multiplexer’).” (Final Office Action, p. 2.) 1 Mailed March 9, 2011. Appeal 2012-005413 Application 12/400,302 3 Appellants have persuasively argued the Examiner reversibly erred in determining claim 1 is indefinite due to the term “multiplexer” in the phrase “a multiplexer electrically connected with the power storage units” (App. Br. 3-4). A claim satisfies the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when one skilled in the art understands the claim parameters as read in light of the specification. BJ Servs. Co. v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 338 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Examiner has not adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim as a result of the claim term “multiplexer” as interpreted in light of the Specification. The field of invention of the present application is directed to power systems for automotive vehicle. (Spec. 1). The Specification describes the multiplexer depicted in Figure 1 as follows: The power storage units 12n are electrically connected with the high voltage multiplexer 14. In the embodiment of Figure 1, the high voltage multiplexer 14 includes a plurality of switches 26n (26a-26d). Each of the switches 26n is electrically connected with at least one of the power storage units 12n. For example, the switch 26a is electrically connected with the power storage units 12a, 12b. The switch 26b is electrically connected with the power storage units 12b, 12c, 12d. Each of the switches 26n is also electrically connected with a first electrical bus 28, a second electrical bus 30 and a ground line 32. Spec. p. 3 Figure 1 of the application is reproduced below: Appeal 2012-005413 Application 12/400,302 4 A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the multiplexer of the claimed invention is electrically connected with the power storage units and switch converter that is configured to selectively operate in a flyback mode or a forward mode. (See Spec. 3-6). The Examiner has not explained why the Specification and Drawing fail to adequately describe the multiplexer required by the claimed invention. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17 as indefinite. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 We reverse the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner asserts that Shimane's junction box 20 is the claimed multiplexer. (Final Office Action, p. 8). We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 4-5) that Shimane's junction box 20 is not a multiplexer as required by the claimed invention because it does not select among Shimane’s battery cells. Indeed, the Examiner Appeal 2012-005413 Application 12/400,302 5 acknowledges that “Shimane fails to teach selecting between two sources, the junction box (ref# 20, Figure 2)” (Ans. 12). On the record before us, the Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation is not supported by factual evidence. It follows that we cannot sustain the § 102 rejection advanced in this appeal. ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 is reversed. REVERSED sld Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation