Ex Parte Bielawski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 2012

12182223 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/182,223 07/30/2008 Matthew Bielawski 1161-101 3371 23869 7590 09/21/2012 Hoffmann & Baron LLP 6900 Jericho Turnpike Syosset, NY 11791 EXAMINER DAVIS, PATRICIA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2012 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 MATTHEW BIELAWSKI, MARK INKMANN, JOSEPH JERGL, GUY PFEIFER, JASON SEARL DAVID THUERK and ROBERT WITTEMANN ______________ Appeal 2011-003411 Application 12/182,223 Technology Center 1700 _______________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Applicants appeal to the Board from the final rejection of claims 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nedelec (US 2009/0035607 A1) and Kurtin (US 3,757,216). We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134(a) (2002); 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a) (2010). We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner. We decide this appeal on independent claim 6 as argued by Appellants. Br., e.g., 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010). Opinion We are of the opinion Appellants’ arguments do not establish that the Appeal 2011-003411 Application 12/182,223 2 evidence in the totality of the record weighs in favor of the claimed combination of an electrical storage battery and a test device for electrical engagement with the storage battery, comprising at least, among other things, a battery terminal extending from a wall of the battery, “a connecting device attached to said terminal” the “terminal having an exposed location adjacent said connecting device” which is engageable by contacting members of the test device, encompassed by representative claim 6. In this respect, we are in agreement with the Examiner’s analysis of the evidence in Nedelec and Kurtin and the findings of fact stated in the Answer, to which we add the following for emphasis with respect to Appellants’ arguments. Ans. 3-4, 6-7; App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2-4. We cannot agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Nedelec’s Figures 1 and 3 would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art a battery in which connection jumper 151 is connected to terminal 500, thus exposing a portion of terminal shaft 513 which can be engageably accessed by spring clips 24 of Kurtin’s test device, thus determining that the combination of Nedelec and Kurtin would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to a combination of battery and testing device encompassed by claim 6. Ans. 3-4, 6-7. We determine when the term “connecting device” in the claim language “a connecting device attached to said terminal” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, the term “connecting device” can be any manner of connection hardware attached to the terminal including “connecting hardware such as connectors, lugs, bus bars and the like.” Spec. ¶ 0019. We find that Nedelec would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in Appeal 2011-003411 Application 12/182,223 3 the art in Figure 1, storage battery assembly 200 with two terminals 500 which are connected to plate 101 of interconnection system 100 and do not have a bus bar attached thereto as do the other terminals 500. Nedelec ¶ 0040. Nedelec discloses that “interconnection system 100 includes retention means for the polar terminals 500 of each cell, means for connection to the electronic control support 300, and an individual conducting circuit.” Nedelec ¶¶ 0041-0043, 0088. Nedelec discloses that retention means 150 of plate 101 of interconnection system 100 attaches to terminal 500 by connection jumper 151 which extends around terminal 500 cylinder 513 by eyelet 152. Nedelec ¶¶ 004-0050, 0062-0063, 0077, Figs. 2, 3. Nedelec discloses that cylinder 513 has top annular shoulder 510 and bottom annular shoulder 515 with annular channel 520 in-between, and “[t]he interconnection eyelet 152 slides sideways into the channel 520 formed by the two shoulders 510 and 515.” Nedelec ¶¶ 0077-0087, Fig. 3. Nedelec discloses an exemplary power connection system used to connect battery cells is illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 which show bus 540 attached to the top of terminal cylinder 513 by spring element 550, wherein the lower brackets 553, 554 of lower branch 552 of spring element 550 fit around terminal cylinder 513 between bottom face 158 of eyelet 152 and bottom annular shoulder 515. Nedelec ¶¶ 0089-0104, Figs. 3-5. On this record, we fail to find that Nedelec’s Figure 3 “does not show the battery terminal with the connecting device attached thereto, as recited in claim 6” because Nedelec teaches a claimed “connecting device” in disclosing that “connection jumper 151, bus bar 540 and spring elements 550” are attached to battery terminal 500 as shown in Nedelec’s Figures 3-5, as Appellants contend. App. Br. 5-6, citing Nedelec ¶¶ 0088-0090; see App, Appeal 2011-003411 Application 12/182,223 4 Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-5. Indeed, contrary to Appellants’ contentions, we determine that Nedelec’s disclosure in Figure 1 that two terminals 500 are attached through connection jumper 151 to plate 101 of interconnection system 100, as further illustrated in Figure 3, meets the limitation that the battery terminal must have “a connecting device attached” in claim 6 as we interpreted this language above. Thus, the Examiner properly relied on Nedelec’s Figures 1 and 3 to show this claim limitation, and indeed, further supported the position by showing that channel 520 in Nedelec’s Figure 3 would provide sufficient space on terminal cylinder 513 for Kurtin’s spring clip by pointing out the Nedelec’s spring element 550 fits in the same space as shown in Nedelec’s Figure 5. Ans. 7. Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Nedelec and Kurtin with Appellants' countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence and weight of argument, that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 6-11 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED cam