Ex Parte Becker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12902873 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/902,873 10/12/2010
65798 7590 04/18/2016
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marc Becker
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.
P009420-BAT-CHE 2853
EXAMINER
PARSONS, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARC BECKER and REMY FONTAINE 1
Appeal2014-005905
Application 12/902,873
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and WLIA
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1---6, 8-16, 19, and 20 as
unpatentable over Bohm (US 5, 141,826, issued Aug. 25, 1992) in view of
Jaura (US 7, 172,831 B2, issued Feb. 6, 2007) and Kothmann (US 4,582,765,
issued Apr. 15, 1986). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
1 General Motors is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005905
Application 12/902,873
Appellants claim a thermal management system for a battery
comprising a blower 110 for providing air flow to a battery enclosure that
has first and second manifolds 106, 108 associated with first and second
three-way valves (independent claim 1, Figs. 16-17) or an arrangement of
four valves (independent claim 13, Figs. 16-17) or an arrangement of six
valves (remaining independent claim 20, Fig. 18) so that air flowing through
the enclosure can be shifted into alternate (e.g., back and forth) directions.
A copy of claims 1, 13, and 20, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A thermal management system for a battery,
said battery including a plurality of battery cells provided in an
enclosure, said enclosure including a first manifold having a
first end and a second end and a second manifold opposite to
the first manifold having a first end and a second end, said
system comprising:
a first three-way valve for allowing fluid flow into or out
of the first end or the second end of the first manifold; and
a second three-way valve for allowing fluid flow into or
out of the first end or the second end of the second manifold so
that the fluid flow through the enclosure flow shifts in a back
and forth direction.
13. A thermal management system for a battery,
said battery including a plurality of battery cells provided in an
enclosure, said enclosure including a first manifold having a
first end and second end and a second manifold opposite the
first manifold having a first end and a second end, said system
compnsmg:
a blower providing an air flow to the enclosure; and
a plurality of valves directing the air flow from the
blower through the enclosure, said valves being selectively
controlled to provide air flow-shifting through the enclosure so
that the air flow alternates in direction through the enclosure,
where the plurality of valves is four valves.
2
Appeal2014-005905
Application 12/902,873
20. A thermal management system for a battery
provided in a battery enclosure, said enclosure including a first
manifold having a first end and second end and a second
manifold opposite the first manifold having a first end
and a second end, said system comprising;
blower providing an air flow to the enclosure; and
a plurality of valves directing the air flow from the
blower through the enclosure, said valves being selectively
controlled to provide air flow-shifting through the enclosure so
that the air flow alternates in direction through the enclosure,
where the plurality of valves is six valves, and the valves can be
configured to direct the air flow into either the first or second
end of the first manifold and out of either the first or second end
of the second manifold, and alternately configured to direct the
air flow into either the first or second end of the second
manifold and out of either the first or second end of the first
manifold.
In rejecting claim 13, the Examiner finds that Bohm discloses a
system having an enclosure with first and second manifolds whereby
blowing air can reversibly flow into or out of either manifold but does not
disclose four valves as claimed (Final Action 11-12) and that Jaura discloses
a system having an enclosure with first and second manifolds associated
with valves 32, 36 whereby blowing air can reversibly flow through the
enclosure in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction (id. at 12).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to have modified
the manifolds of Bohm ... with the valves of Jaura ... such that the first
manifold of Bohm comprises a first valve (32, 36) of Jaura ... and the
second manifold of Bohm ... comprises a second valve (32, 36) of Jaura ...
[thereby] provid[ing] a plurality of valves (i.e. 4 valves)" (id. at 12).
3
Appeal2014-005905
Application 12/902,873
The Examiner builds on this rejection in addressing the other
independent claims by concluding that it would have been obvious to modify
the four valves of the Bohm/Jaura combination to be six valves as required
by claim 20 (id. at 15) or to be two three-way valves (in view of Kothmann)
as required by claim 1 (id. at 5).
Appellants correctly point out that "Bohm does not teach anything
about valves at all, and Jaura teaches only two valves (32 and 36)" (App. Br.
15). Appellants argue that "combining the teaching of Bohm and Jaura does
not somehow tum two valves into four valves" (id.).
Appellants' argument has persuasive merit. The Examiner does not
specifically explain how or why each of the first and second manifolds of
Bohm would have been provided with valves 32 and 36 of Jaura. Without
such an explanation, it is not apparent where these valves would be located
in each of Bohm's manifolds or how the resulting arrangement would
provide the reversible flow desired by Bohm and Jaura. Furthermore, as
properly explained by Appellants, the four-valve arrangement proposed by
the Examiner would not have been suggested by the references because
Bohm has no teaching regarding valves and Jaura teaches only two valves
32 and 36 for obtaining reversible flow. Based on the record before us, the
only apparent combination of these references that is supported by the
applied prior art alone (i.e., in the absence of hindsight) is a system having
the two-valve arrangement shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Jaura.
For these reasons, the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been
obvious to provide Bohm with four valves is merely a conclusory statement,
not supported by articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
4
Appeal2014-005905
Application 12/902,873
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness") quoted with approval in KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
As previously indicated, the Examiner relies on this deficient
obviousness conclusion in rejecting independent claims 1 and 20 as well as
independent claim 13. It follows that we will not sustain the§ 103 rejection
of these claims or the claims which depend therefrom.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5