Tesla Motors, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 9, 2020

15381259 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 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.
15/381,259 12/16/2016 Joseph Mardall TSLA.373C1 4144
113241 7590 11/09/2020
KNOBBE MARTENS (TSLA)
2040 MAIN STREET, 14TH FL
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
ROSSOSHEK, YELENA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2851
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2020 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):
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH MARDALL and CHRISTOPHER H. VAN DYKE

Appeal 2020-001610
Application 15/381,259
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on October 26, 2020.
2 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 Tesla, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001610
Application 15/381,259

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to “systems and techniques that provide
thermal conditioning of an electric vehicle during a charging session.” Spec,
page 3, ll. 1–2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A vehicle comprising:
an energy storage configured to store electric energy for at
least propulsion of the vehicle;
an energy storage thermal system configured to provide
thermal conditioning of the energy storage; and
a coupling configured to:
provide, to a thermal system external to the vehicle,
thermal information relating to a temperature requirement of the
energy storage during charging of the energy storage, including
a vehicle-requested coolant temperature; and
receive thermal conditioning of the energy storage from
the thermal system external to the vehicle, wherein during
charging:
the coupling provides thermal conditioning of the energy
storage when available from the thermal system external to the
vehicle; and
the energy storage thermal system provides thermal
conditioning of the energy storage when the thermal system
external to the vehicle is not available.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Taguchi US 2010/0089669 A1 Apr. 15, 2010
Dyer et al. “Dyer” US 2013/0029193 Al Jan. 31, 2013

Appeal 2020-001610
Application 15/381,259

3
Rejection
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dyer in view of Taguchi.
OPINION
Claim 1, inter alia, recites “provide . . . thermal information relating
to a temperature requirement of the energy storage during charging of the
energy storage, including a vehicle-requested coolant temperature.”
(Emphasis added.) Claim 11 recites similar subject matter.
The Examiner finds that Dyer teaches or suggests the aforementioned
thermal information relating to vehicle-requested coolant temperature
limitations. See Final Act. 3–4, 6–7; see also Ans. 3–5.
Appellant contends “Dyer discloses that the controller can adjust the
corresponding value of the flowrate. According to Appellant, adjusting a
flowrate does not teach or suggest that the vehicle itself requests coolant of a
particular temperature, as recited by the appellant's claims 1 and 11. See,
Dyer, para. [0024].” Appeal Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner finds that paragraph 37 of Dyer teaches:
“In order to sufficiently cool battery 30 during such charging to
maintain an acceptable temperature of approximately 45 degrees
Celsius, coolant source 64 may provide oil (supplied at 20 degrees
Celsius) at a rate of at least 0. 73 liters per second (44 liters per minute)
or may provide air (supplied at 0 degrees Celsius) at a rate of at least
1800 cubic feet per minute”. This is clearly “a vehicle-requested
coolant temperature” (claims 1 and 11 have similar languages) which
is a part of the control operation of the vehicle controller 28 and the
external controller 70.

Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted).

Appeal 2020-001610
Application 15/381,259

4
The Examiner explains that:
the temperature of the battery 30/energy storage is measured by sensors
115 and the information related to the temperature is transmitted to the
controller 28 (paragraphs [0024], [0036]; Figure 4), and wherein
controller 28 decides if the measured temperature of the battery
30/energy storage is warmer/cooler/temperature than
normal/acceptable temperature for further request of certain
temperature of coolant/thermal conditioning/air/oil to bring the
temperature to the normal level (paragraphs [0024], [0031 ]). Moreover
when the vehicle is not in driving mode, but is in charging mode for
charging battery 30/energy storage from charging station 60 (paragraph
[0017]; Figures 1 a, 1 b), the internal controller 28 of the vehicle
transmits the information to the external controller 70 of the charging
station 60, wherein the information includes the information related to
the requested cooling/warming/temperature of the coolant/thermal
conditioning/air/oil (paragraphs [0024], [0032]), wherein requested
temperature of external coolant/thermal conditioning/air/oil, for
example, might be 20 degrees Celsius or 0 degrees Celsius to bring the
temperature of battery 30/energy storage to the normal/acceptable
condition during the process of charging efficiently (paragraphs [0037],
[0038], [0048]).
Ans. 4–5.
We agree with the Examiner’s above findings and conclusion and
adopt them as our own. First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claims that is consistent with the Specification does not preclude adjusting
the flowrate to control the coolant temperature, as taught or suggested by the
combination of Dyer and Taguchi. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004): “[T]he PTO is obligated to give
claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.”).
Second, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 5), paragraph 37 of Dyer explicitly
teaches or suggests a specific temperature of approximately 45 degrees
Celsius that corresponds to the claimed thermal information relating to
vehicle-requested coolant temperature.
Appeal 2020-001610
Application 15/381,259

5
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of dependent claims 2–10, and 12–20 which are not separately
argued by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 4–7.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103(a) Dyer, Taguchi 1–20

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