Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 24, 2016

13171887 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/171,887 06/29/2011
28395 7590 02/26/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hongjie Wu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83179653 6294
EXAMINER
AMRANY,ADI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONGJIE WU and YUQING TANG
Appeal2014-003474
Application 13/171,887
Technology Center 2800
Before JON M. JURGOV AN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1---6, 15-17, and 23-28, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse. 2
1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed June 29, 2011 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed Feb. 27, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed Aug. 28, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Nov. 6,
2013 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 6, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-003474
Application 13/171,887
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for charging or
discharging an electrical device in a vehicle. (Spec. Abstract.) Claim 1,
shown below with argued limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for charging and discharging an electrical device
in a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a first power source configured to provide low voltage
(L V) energy;
a switch for enabling and disabling the first power source;
a second power source configured to provide high voltage
(HV) energy for charging the electrical device;
a first contactor comprising a first switch and a first
winding, the first winding being connected to the first power
source for receiving the L V energy and the first switch being
connected to the second power source for receiving the HV
energy, the first contactor being configured to enable the second
power source to provide the HV energy to the electrical device
for charging thereof in response to the switch enabling the first
power source; and
a second contactor comprising a second switch and a
second winding, the second winding being connected in series
with the first winding and in series with the first power source
for receiving the L V energy and the second switch being
connected to the second power source for receiving the HV
energy, wherein the switch is connected between the first power
source and at least one of the first winding and the second
winding such that the second contactor is in an open state in
response to the switch enabling the first power source.
Independent claim 25 is shown below with argued limitations emphasized.
25. An apparatus comprising:
a low voltage circuit including a first power source for
providing low voltage, a first winding connected in series with
the first power source, a second winding connected in series with
the first winding, and a switch connected in series between the
first power source and at least one of the first winding and the
2
Appeal2014-003474
Application 13/171,887
second winding for enabling and disabling the first power
source;
a high voltage circuit including a second power source for
providing high voltage, a capacitor connected in parallel with the
second power source, a first switch connected in series between
the second power source and the capacitor and coupled to the
first winding such that the first switch closes to provide high
voltage to the capacitor in response to the switch enabling the
first power source; and
a discharge circuit including a second switch connected in
series with a resistive element, the discharge circuit being
connected in parallel with the second power source and with the
capacitor, the second switch being coupled to the second winding
such that the second switch opens to disable the discharge circuit
in response to the switch enabling the first power source.
All other claims depend from either claim 1 or claim 25.
REJECTION
Claims 1-6, 15-17, and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Sumi et al. (US 2011/0050136 Al; Mar. 3, 2011). (Final
Act. 6-11.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Sumi does not teach a winding of discharge circuit
84 is connected in series with a winding of the main relay 82, as shown
below in Sumi, Figure 2. (App. Br. 6, 7.) Appellants further argue Sumi
does not teach a winding of discharge circuit 84 connected in series with DC
power source 100. (Id.) Accordingly, Appellants conclude Sumi does not
teach or suggest "a second contactor comprising a second switch and a
second winding, the second winding being connected in series with the first
winding and in series with the first power source" as recited in claim 1. For
3
Appeal2014-003474
Application 13/171,887
similar reasons, relative to claim 25, Appellants argue Sumi does not teach
or suggest "a second winding connected in series with the first winding, and
a switch connected in series between the first power source and at least one
of the first winding and the second winding for enabling and disabling the
first power source."
FIG. 2
Sumi, Figure 2 shows relay switches 82, 84, ignition switch IG, and DC
power source 100.
The Examiner acknowledges Sumi does not expressly teach or
suggest two windings in series. (Final Act. 8). However, the Examiner
asserts this configuration would have been obvious because the two
windings are controlled at exactly the same time to open or close based on
the ignition switch. (Id.). The Examiner contends that replacing the
function of two opposing signals (one open command, and one closed
command) with one signal (switch command) is within the level of ordinary
4
Appeal2014-003474
Application 13/171,887
skill in the art. (Id.). The Examiner concludes the number of commands and
relative positions of the windings will not have any effect on the
functionality of the Sumi apparatus. (Id.).
The Examiner does not adequately explain why one of ordinary skill
would rearrange windings, which are not mentioned in Sumi, from parallel
to series, then connect them in series with the DC power source in the case
of claim 1, and, in the case of claim 25, further connect them in series with
the ignition switch, in an attempt to arrive at the claimed invention. As
Appellants note (App. Br. 8), modifying Sumi's relays 82, 84 from parallel
to series would eliminate the ability to independently control the relays. It
would also increase susceptibility of the circuit to faults because elements in
series are dependent on one another. Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants'
argument that Sumi does not render obvious the claimed limitations.
Specifically, Sumi does not teach or suggest "the second winding being
connected in series with the first winding" as recited claim 1, and "a second
• 1 • , 1 • • • , 1 , 1 ~ , • 1 • .,., • ' 1 • 1 • I""\!""' wznazng connecrea zn serzes wnn me 1zrsr wznazng · as recnea m crn1m LJ.
Further, with regard to claim 25, the Examiner does not explain how
Sumi teaches or suggests the undisclosed windings of relays 82, 84 are
connected to receive current from the DC power source 100 through the
ignition switch IG rather than through the connection line that bypasses the
ignition switch IG in Sumi, Figure 2. Thus, the Examiner has not shown
Sumi teaches or suggests "a switch connected in series between the first
power source and at least one of the first winding and the second winding
for enabling and disabling the first power source" as recited in claim 25.
"[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
5
Appeal2014-003474
Application 13/171,887
obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)(citing In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In this case,
we find the underpinning insufficient to support the conclusion of
obviousness.
In view of our decision on the stated grounds, we do not reach
Appellants' remaining arguments.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1---6, 15-17,
and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Sumi.
REVERSED
6