Ex Parte Williams

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 19, 2012

11479420 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/479,420 06/30/2006 Jeffrey A. Williams STL13148 8550
7590 04/20/2012
Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens
Suite 1700
100 North Broadway
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, ARUN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS
____________

Appeal 2010-008594
Application 11/479,420
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and THOMAS S.
HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20, which are all of the pending claims. An oral hearing was
conducted on this appeal on April 17, 2012. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2010-008594
Application 11/479,420

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 28, 2009), the Answer
(mailed Mar. 5, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed May 5, 2010).

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to arbitration circuitry configured to
calibrate, in relation to respective stored calibration status, each of a plurality
of batteries which are individually selectable to provide power to a system
load. Upon the comparison of charging records for each of the plurality of
batteries, a battery power calibration procedure is initiated to a selected
battery. See generally Spec. 2:17-25.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
processing instructions stored in a computer readable memory that are
executable for comparing charging records of each of a plurality of
batteries that are alternatively selectable to provide power in a system;
and
further processing the instructions that are executable for instigating a
battery power calibration procedure to a selected battery of the plurality of
batteries in relation to results of the comparing step.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Fisher US 6,463,545 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
Goodman US 2005/0138071 A1 Jun. 23, 2005
Sone US 2005/0259460 A1 Nov. 24, 2005
Appeal 2010-008594
Application 11/479,420

3
Benckenstein, Jr. US 2007/0126400 A1 June 7, 2007
(Benckenstein) (filed Dec. 2, 2005)

Claims 1-3, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Benckenstein.
Claims 4-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Benckenstein in view of Goodman.
Claims 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Benckenstein in view of Fisher.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Benckenstein in view of Sone.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION

Claim 1
Appellant argues, with respect to independent claim 1, that
Benckenstein does not disclose the instigation of a battery power calibration
procedure as claimed. According to Appellant, the Examiner, in applying
the Benckenstein reference, has construed the term “calibration” in a manner
which is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the term and with the
usage of the term in the Specification.1 In Appellant’s view, the Examiner
erred in equating Benckenstein’s disclosure of comparing the charge of a
selected battery of a battery pack and discharging the selected battery until a

1 Appellant cites Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary in support of the
contention that the ordinary meaning of the term “calibrate” is “verifying an
attribute by comparing an observed value to a known standard.” App. Br. 6.
Appeal 2010-008594
Application 11/479,420

4
balanced state is achieved with the claimed calibration procedure (App. Br.
10-12; Reply Br. 4-6).
We do not agree with Appellant. We find no error in the Examiner’s
determination that Benckenstein’s disclosure (¶¶ [0023] and [0051]) of
balancing the state of charge of a battery pack by comparing the state of
charge of a selected battery with a balanced state requirement and
discharging the selected battery until a balanced state is achieved is
consistent with Appellant’s characterization of the accepted ordinary
meaning of “calibration.” As explained by the Examiner, the balanced state
of Benckenstein’s battery pack is an objective standard to which the charges
of selected batteries are compared and adjusted to achieve a balanced state
(Ans. 9-10).
Further, to whatever extent Appellant is contending (App. Br. 10) that
the Examiner’s position is in error since Benckenstein never uses any form
of the term “calibrate,” we would point out that anticipation "is not an
'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(citing Akzo N.V. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479
n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate
word for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor
Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
We also note that Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs rely on a more
restrictive meaning of “calibration,” i.e., comparison to an objective
standard, rather than a comparison to a known standard as in the dictionary
definition cited by Appellant. Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner that
a balanced state of Benckenstein’s battery back is indeed an objective
standard to which a selected battery may be compared, i.e., the battery pack
Appeal 2010-008594
Application 11/479,420

5
is either balanced or it is not. While the particular voltage level at which
Benckenstein’s battery pack is in balance may conceivably vary depending
on system conditions, as argued by Appellant (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4-
5), the actual state of balance is an objective standard, not a subjective one as
Appellant contends.
In view of the above discussion, we find that the Examiner did not err
in concluding that all of the limitations of independent claim 1 are present in
the disclosure of Benckenstein. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1 is sustained.

Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16
We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, based on
Benckenstein, of dependent claims 2, 3, and 15, as well as independent
claim 16. Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 6-7) are not
persuasive of any error in the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 3, 4, 10, and
11) that Benckenstein discloses the storing of charging records stored in
memory relative to the calibration, i.e., balanced state, status of each battery
in the battery pack (¶¶ [0032], [0056], and [0057]).

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based on
separate combinations of Benckenstein with various secondary references, of
dependent claims 4-14 and 17-19, as well as independent claim 20.
Appellant has not argued the rejected claims with any particularity but,
instead, has relied upon arguments asserted against the rejection of claim 1
Appeal 2010-008594
Application 11/479,420

6
alleging Benckenstein’s lack of disclosure of determining battery calibration
status. We have found these arguments unpersuasive as discussed supra.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-3, 15, and 16 for anticipation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e), and rejecting claims 4-14, and 17-20 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk