Panasonic Automotive Systems Company of America, Division of Panasonic Corporation of North America

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 22, 2020

2019003860 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2020)

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.
14/803,145 07/20/2015 HAROLD ARTHUR SMITH 11123.1040USC2 1657
52558 7590 05/22/2020
PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
COMPANY OF AMERICA
776 HWY 74 SOUTH
c/o Panasonic Legal
PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269
EXAMINER
PHAN, MINH Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2852
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2020 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):
Larry.Roach@us.panasonic.com
Vertisha.Percival@us.panasonic.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAROLD ARTHUR SMITH
Appeal 2019-003860
Application 14/803,145
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Panasonic
Automotive Systems Company of America, Division of Panasonic
Corporation of North America. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed October
31, 2018, at 3.
Appeal 2019-003860
Application 14/803,145

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a current sensing system and method. Spec. 1,
Title. Appellant discloses that the current sensing circuit has a wide common
mode voltage tolerance, measurement device protection, and is current
limiting. Id. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A current sense circuit comprising:
a voltage-to-current converter circuit that is adapted to
receive a voltage that is proportional to a load current through a
load and to produce a current proportional to the load current;
and
a current-to-voltage converter circuit that is adapted to
receive the current proportional to the load current and to
produce a voltage proportional to the load current.
Independent claim 9 recites a method of sensing current drawn by a
load comprising receiving a voltage proportional to a load current, producing
and receiving a current proportional to the load current, and producing a
voltage proportional to the load current.
Independent claim 15 recites a motorized vehicle comprising, among
other things, a current sense circuit as recited in claim 1.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Fiegura US 6,114,774 Sept. 05, 2000
Ivanov US 6,198,296 B1 Mar. 06, 2001
Saeueng et al. (“Saeueng”) US 2006/0273740 A1 Dec. 07, 2006
Klang US 2006/0279288 A1 Dec. 14, 2006

Appeal 2019-003860
Application 14/803,145

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Saeueng;
2. Claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Saeueng in view of Klang;
3. Claims 7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Saeueng in view of Ivanov;
4. Claims 5, 6, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fiegura in view of Saeueng;
5. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fiegura in
view of Saeueng, and further in view of Ivanov; and
6. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Fiegura in
view of Saeueng, and further in view of Klang.
OPINION
Appellant’s arguments focus solely on the anticipation rejection and
limitations of claim 1. Appellant relies on the arguments against the
anticipation rejection of claim for the remaining claims and rejections. For
convenience, therefore, our discussion focuses on claim 1. However, we
have fully considered Appellant’s arguments to the extent applicable to each
ground of rejection.
Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellant’s
arguments as set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, we determine that
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. In
re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s
Appeal 2019-003860
Application 14/803,145

4
long-held practice of requiring Appellant to identify the alleged error in the
Examiner’s rejection). Accordingly, we affirm the stated anticipation and
obviousness rejections based substantially on the fact findings and for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the
Examiner’s Answer. We offer the following for emphasis only.
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Saeueng. The Examiner finds that Saeueng teaches a current sense circuit
as recited in claim 1, comprising a voltage to current converter circuit
represented by current sensing resistor 203 for receiving a voltage
proportional to a load current and producing a current proportional to the
load current, and a current to voltage converter circuit represented by current
sensing amplifier 204 for receiving a current proportional to the load current
and producing a voltage proportional to the load current. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that no current is produced that is proportional to a
load current through Saeueng’s load 201 because the current drawn by the
two inputs to amplifier 204 are not proportional to a load current through
load 201. Appeal Br. 7. This argument is not persuasive because Appellant
fails to explain in any detail why Saeueng fails to teach producing a current
proportional to the load current through load 201. The Examiner specifically
finds that current sensing resistor 203 performs the function of a voltage to
current converter circuit by receiving a voltage proportional to the voltage
drawn by the load and producing a current proportional to that voltage.
Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that sensed voltage across resistor 203
inherently produces a proportional current according to Ohm’s Law (i.e.,
voltage (“V”) equals current (“I”) times resistance (“R”)).
Appeal 2019-003860
Application 14/803,145

5
Despite acknowledging that Ohm’s Law provides a current through a
resistor that is proportional to the voltage across the resistor, Appellant
contends that “the current and the voltage are not the same thing.” Reply
Br. 4. Appellant fails to explain the significance of this fact, especially given
that Appellant recognizes that a resistor provides a current that is
proportional to the voltage across the resistor. If the voltage across
Saeueng’s resistor 203 is proportional to the load current through load 201
as the Examiner finds, then the current through the resistor is proportional to
the load current by virtue of Ohm’s Law.
According to Appellant, the voltage across resistor 203 may be
proportional to the load current through load 201 only if the load has a fixed
resistance. Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends that Saeueng fails to disclose
that the load resistance is fixed, and asserts that most useful loads have a
variable resistance, e.g., based on being turned on or off, or having a
potentiometer. Id. Appellant further asserts that because Saeueng discloses
several resistors connected in parallel with load 201, changes in load
resistance will result in a different percentage change in the load current than
in the current through resistor 203. Id. at 3. Appellant then urges that
“[b]ecause the current through resistor 203 is not proportional to the current
through load 201, the voltage across resistor 203 is also not proportional to
the current through load 201.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Appellant
has not established a premise of the argument that the current through
resistor 203 is not proportional to the current through load 201. We note that
Appellant’s resistors 208, 210 are connected in the same manner as
Saeueng’s resistors positioned on opposite sides of resistor 203. Moreover,
Appeal 2019-003860
Application 14/803,145

6
Saeueng’s load 201 is connected similarly to Saeueng’s current sensing
resistor 203 as Appellant’s load 202 is connected to Appellant’s current
sense resistor 204. Given these similarities between Saeueng’s and
Appellant’s circuit structure, Appellant fails to adequately explain why
Saeueng’s unlabeled resistors would produce changes in load resistance
resulting in a different percentage change in load current than the current
through resistor 203, whereas Appellant’s would not. We recognize that
Appellant discloses resistors 208, 210 are parts of the voltage-to-current
converter circuit, but note that Appellant discloses that such conversion
provides more than mere conversion of a voltage proportional to load current
to a current proportional to load current. See Spec. ¶ 18 (“adapted to
measure the flow of current in the presence of significant and variable
voltage, and to avoid over-ranging an analog-to-digital converter or other
measurement display device”). As such, Appellant has not shown that the
voltage across resistor 203 is not proportional to the current through load
201.
Appellant next argues that Saeueng fails to disclose a
current-to-voltage converter circuit. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that
Saeueng’s amplifier 204 does not receive a current proportional to the load
current. Reply Br. 3. Instead, Appellant asserts that Saeueng’s resistor 203
carries the load current and amplifier 204 receives only a voltage applied
across resistor 203. Id. However, Appellant fails to adequately support this
assertion which is an essential premise of this argument. As the Examiner
finds, Ohm’s Law provides that the voltage and current applied over a
resistor are proportional to each other. As such, Saeueng’s resistor 203
receives a voltage proportional to the load current, as the Examiner finds,
Appeal 2019-003860
Application 14/803,145

7
and produces a current that is proportional to this voltage by virtue of Ohm’s
Law.
In this regard, Appellant asserts that Saeueng’s amplifier 204 is a
well-known type of device that measures a voltage across resistor 203 but
does not draw current from resistor 203. Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends
that it is well known that an operational amplifier is connected to a fixed
voltage source from which the amplifier draws current, though such voltage
sources are often not shown in circuit diagrams because it is so well known
that they are necessary. Id. However, Appellant fails to direct our attention
to any evidentiary support on this record for these assertions, especially
given that Appellant proffers these assertions for the first time in the Reply
Brief. Absent evidentiary support for these assertions, we cannot accept as
fact that it was well known that Saeueng’s amplifier 204 does not draw
current from resistor 203, given that such is contrary to Saeueng’s explicit
description. See Saeueng ¶ 19 (“a current sensing amplifier 204 is coupled to
the current sensing resistor 203”); Fig. 2.
Thus, Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
finding that Saeueng anticipates claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant does not
present separate arguments against the remaining claims and rejections, we
likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–7 and 9–20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–20 is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-003860
Application 14/803,145

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 9,
10, 12, 14
102(e) Saeueng 1, 2, 4, 9,
10, 12, 14

3, 13 103(a) Saeueng, Klang 3, 13
7, 11 103(a) Saeueng, Ivanov 7, 11
5, 6, 15, 17,
19, 20
103(a) Fiegura, Saeueng 5, 6, 15, 17,
19, 20

16 103(a) Fiegura, Saeueng,
Ivanov
16
18 103(a) Fiegura, Saeueng,
Klang
18
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED