Court Opinion

ID: 9872921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 21:17:49.723591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:30.698899
License: Public Domain

Stoll, Circuit Judge,
dissenting-in-part.
I respectfully dissent with respect to Section III.C on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claims 9, 23, and 36 would have been obvious in view of Severinsky. The Board’s decision does not adequately explain its bases for concluding that Severinsky teaches “employing said engine to propel said vehicle when the torque RL required to do so is less than said lower level SP and using the torque between RL and SP to drive said at least one electric motor to charge said battery when the state of charge of said battery indicates the desirability of doing so,” ’347 patent col. 60 11. 46-52, as required by claims 23 and 36. Nor has the Board provided sufficient rationale to support its conclusion that Severinsky teaches claim 9’s specific requirement of “a low-speed *919battery charging mode II.” Id. at col. 5911, 13-24.