Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

11844407 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LIGONG WANG, GERALD COURTNEY, JR.,
and YIN-CHEUNG MA
____________

Appeal 2010-008504
Application 11/844,407
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10 and 16. The real party in interest is Dell Products L.P.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2010-008504
Application 11/844,407

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Applied Prior Art
Luo U.S. 2006/0181244 A1 Aug. 17, 2006
Takimoto U.S. 2005/0017676 A1 Jan. 27, 2005

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Luo.1
Claim 16 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Takimoto.

The Invention
Appellants disclose, referring to Appellants’ Figure 1 below, a charge
protection system for a battery 12 having both an external power source
connector 38 and an internal power connector 36. Spec. 6:4-22.

1 As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 2), the Appeal Brief states that an appeal
is sought only for claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, and 16. (App. Br. 2). Thus, the
Examiner has cancelled claims 3, 4, 6-8, 11-15, and 17-20. (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2010-008504
Application 11/844,407

3
Appellants’ Figure 1 is below:

Figure 1 depicts a battery 12 for an information handling system 10.

Claim 1 is illustrative with certain limitations emphasized:
1. An information handling system comprising:
a housing;
processing components disposed in the housing and
operable to process information; and
a battery coupled to the housing, the battery having an
integrated charger, one or more cells, a first integrated
protection circuit associated with the integrated charger and a
second integrated protection circuit associated with the battery
cells.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Rejection of Claim 1 as Anticipated by Luo
The Examiner determined that Luo discloses all elements of claim 1,
including a first integrated protection circuit associated with the integrated
charger and a second integrated protection circuit associated with the battery
Appeal 2010-008504
Application 11/844,407

4
cells. (Ans. 3).2 Appellants disagree and argue that Luo fails to disclose a
first protection circuit associated with an integrated charger. (App. Br. 4).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner maps the first protection circuit recited in claim 1 to the
Charge Field Effect Transistor (“C-FET”) 414 disclosed in Luo and the
second protection circuit recited in claim 1 to the Discharge Field Effect
Transistor (“D-FET”) 416 disclosed in Luo. (Ans. 3 (citing Luo ¶¶ [0038],
[0041])). Appellants argue that both C-FET 414 and D-FET 416 of Luo are
each associated with the battery cells, not a charger. (App. Br. 3-4).
Contrary to Appellants’ assertions, the Examiner finds that C-FET
414 in Luo is associated with both the integrated charger and the battery
cells, which is not prohibited by Appellants’ claim 1. (Ans. 7). More
particularly, the Examiner finds that C-FET 414 in Luo is associated with
integrated charger 390 and 392. (Ans. 6 (citing Luo ¶ [0038])). In fact, Luo
discloses that C-FET 414 is switched to allow or disallow the flow of
charging current from the integrated charger. (See Luo ¶ [0038]).
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that C-FET 414 is connected to and
controlled by the integrated charger (392, 390) to regulate charging and
protect against over-voltage. (Ans. 6-7). Therefore, the Examiner’s
conclusion that C-FET 414 is “associated with the integrated charger,” as
recited in Appellants’ claim 1 is reasonable and Appellants have not shown
otherwise.

2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jan. 28,
2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar 23, 2010).
Appeal 2010-008504
Application 11/844,407

5
Appellants further argue that “Luo fails to disclose the charger
protection circuits depicted as element 44 in Figure 2,” of Appellants’
Specification. (App. Br. 4).
Appellants’ Figure 2 is below:

Figure 2 depicts a battery 12 having a charger 46 and charger
protection circuits 44.

The charger protection circuits 44 shown in Figure 2 above are illustrated
and disclosed in Appellants’ Specification as circuits in addition to C-FET
52 and D-FET 50. (See Spec. 7:17-29). Although Appellants’ Figure 2
illustrates separate “charger protection circuits 44,” they are not required by
Appellants’ claim 1. (Ans. 5-7). Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 requires only two
protection circuits, one associated with an integrated charger and one
associated with the battery cells, as disclosed in Luo. (Id.).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
anticipated by Luo.
Appeal 2010-008504
Application 11/844,407

6

B. The Rejection of Claim 2 as Anticipated by Luo
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 2 is improper because Luo
fails to disclose that the first protection circuit monitors the power received
at the charger, as recited in claim 2. The Examiner finds, however, that Luo
discloses that C-FET 414 monitors the charging current power received at
the charger (392, 390). (Ans. 7). In fact, Appellants concede in their Brief
that C-FET 414 in Luo “is used to monitor charging at a battery.” (App. Br.
4). Accordingly, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 2.

C. The Rejection of Claim 5 as Anticipated by Luo
Appellants argue that the rejection of dependent claim 5 is improper
because Luo fails to disclose “a charger associated with the processing
components and operable to charge the battery cells if the first protection
circuit is tripped.” (App. Br. 5 (quoting claim 5 (emphasis added))). More
specifically, Appellants argue that the failure of C-FEF 414 in the battery of
Luo will prevent the charging of the battery. (Id.).
Assuming, without deciding, that the Examiner’s construction of the
claim term “tripped” to mean “to become operative” is proper, we find that
the Examiner’s mapping of claim 5 to Luo is insufficient. Claim 5 requires
that “a charger associated with the processing components” be operable to
charge the battery cells “if the first protection circuit is tripped” (emphasis
added). Therefore, Claim 5 is broad enough to include a system where the
“charger associated with the processing components” is different than the
charger associated with the “integrated charger” recited in claim 1.
Therefore, claim 5 at least includes the situation in which a different charger
Appeal 2010-008504
Application 11/844,407

7
than the one associated with the first protection circuit be operable to charge
the battery cells if the first protection circuit is tripped. As described in
Appellants’ Specification, failure of the first protection circuit can “prevent
charging through external power source connector 38 but do[es] not prevent
charging through internal device power connector 36.” (Spec. 7:26-28).
Therefore, in the embodiment described in Appellants’ Specification, the
information handling system 10 can provide two chargers, a charger 34 in
the casing of the information handling system 10 and a charger 36 integrated
within the battery. (See Spec. 5:28 – 6:3; 7:17-19). Thus, if the battery’s
integrated charger fails, then charge can be applied by a charger inside the
laptop. (See id.).
The Examiner fails to cite to a second charger in Luo, but relies
instead on the same integrated charger 310 relied upon for claim 1. (Ans. 3).
Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that the tripping of C-FET 414 in Luo
renders a second charger operable to charge the battery cells is not supported
by record evidence. Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claim 5.

D. The Rejection of Claim 9 as Anticipated by Luo
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 9 is improper because Luo
fails to disclose “monitoring the charger with a first protection circuit
integrated in the battery.” (App. Br. 4 (quoting claim 9)). Specifically,
Appellants argue that Luo “cannot monitor a charger with a first protection
circuit and cells with a second protection circuit during a charge since Luo
only has one C-FET 414 that monitors charge.” (Id. (emphasis added)).
Once again, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
Appeal 2010-008504
Application 11/844,407

8
the claims because, as the Examiner finds, nothing in claim 9 requires
monitoring the cells by the second protection circuit during a charge, or
prohibits monitoring the cells by the second protection circuit during
discharge. (See Ans. 9). Therefore, the Examiner finds that Luo’s
disclosure of a D-FET 416 to monitor the cells during discharging
anticipates this limitation of claim 9. Accordingly, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 9.

E. The Rejection of Claim 10 as Anticipated by Luo
Appellants argue that the rejection of dependent claim 10 is improper
for the same reason as claim 5 because claim 10 requires applying a voltage
from a second charger when a fault is detected in the first protection circuit.
(App. Br. 5). The same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5 apply
to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 10.

F. The Rejection of Claim 16 as Anticipated by Takimoto
The Examiner rejects claim 16 as anticipated by Takimoto, but
Appellants argue that the portable device disclosed in Takimoto does not
charge from its housing as required by claim 16. (App. Br. 5). The
Examiner finds that independent claim 16, unlike Appellants’ independent
claims 1 and 9, does not require the elements of the claim be integrated into
the battery. (Ans. 11). Thus, the Examiner finds that Takimoto anticipates
because it discloses that the battery pack 12 and the portable device 11 can
be joined to form a single casing (11, 12). (Ans. 11 (citing Takimoto ¶¶
[0021], [0022])). In fact, Takimoto further discloses that the battery pack 12
Appeal 2010-008504
Application 11/844,407

9
is connected to the “portable device (notebook computer) 11” to form a
single housing. (Takimoto ¶¶ [0020], [0021]). Accordingly, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 16.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
REVERSED.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc