Ex Parte Bulur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2017

13620433 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017)

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.
13/620,433 09/14/2012 Yakup Bulur XAUS920120256US1 4326
128780 7590 12/13/2017
Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC
802 Still Creek Lane
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
ERWIN, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2017 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 YAKUP BULUR, RICHARD J. FISHBUNE, MARK E.
MARESH, NEIL C. SWENSON, and ADAM M. WHEELER
Appeal 2017-002458
Application 13/620,4331
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejections adverse to the patentability of claims 1—3, 7, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lenovo Enterprise Solutions
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. App. Br. 3.
2 The Examiner has indicated the subject matter of claims 4—6 and 8 is
allowable. Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2017-002458
Application 13/620,433
SUBJECT MATTER
Sole independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal, and is copied below with the key disputed limitation italicized:
1. A system comprising:
a printed circuit board (PCB) having a first PCB circuit
including a positive circuit terminal, a negative circuit terminal,
a plurality of electrical interfaces, a plurality of selectively
actuatable jumpers, and a plurality of conductors;
the plurality of conductors connecting each one of the
plurality of electrical interfaces through the jumpers to the
positive and negative circuit terminals in a selectable one of a
series connection and a parallel connection;
a plurality of modular battery stacks, each battery stack
including at least one battery module, each battery module
including a first battery connector, a second battery connector,
and a battery, the battery having a positive battery terminal
connected to the first battery connector and a negative battery
terminal connected to the second battery connector; and one of
the first battery connectors of each battery stack being
mechanically and electrically non-destructively removably
connected to a respective first one of the plurality of electrical
interfaces and one of the second battery connectors of each
battery stack being mechanically and electrically non-
destructively removably connected to a respective second one of
the plurality of electrical interfaces, wherein the first and second
battery connectors of each first battery module are configured to
receive a second battery module; and
a battery stack cover assembly including a cover
configured to encase at least a portion of at least a first one of the
plurality of battery stacks, the cover incorporating at least one
return conductor.
App. Br. 20 (emphasis added).
2
Appeal 2017-002458
Application 13/620,433
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Baggaley
Shen
Troutman
US 6,403,251 B1
US 2006/0267546 A1
US 2012/0094150 A1
June 11, 2002
Nov. 30, 2006
Apr. 19, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 1—3, 7, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baggaley, Troutman and Shen. Final Act. 2—7; Ans. 2—7.
OPINION
The Examiner’s reasons for rejecting claims 1—3, 7, and 24 are
outlined at pages 2—7 of each the Final Office Action and the Answer.
We address the claims separately to the extent they are so argued by
Appellants. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 24
We have considered Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-16; Reply
Br. 1—3) and are unpersuaded that Appellants have identified any reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365—66 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring an
Appellant to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection).
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, and 24 for
the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and in the
Answer.
We add the following, beginning with claim construction. Sole
independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a plurality of modular battery stacks,
each battery stack including at least one battery module, each battery
3
Appeal 2017-002458
Application 13/620,433
module including a first battery connector, a second battery connector, and a
battery.” (emphasis added). The Examiner determines that Baggaley’s
module 2 “reads on a ‘battery stack’ [because] the module includes at least
one battery module, i.e., [because] at least two are not required, at least one
must necessarily read on a ‘battery stack’.” Final Act. 2. Appellants assert,
however, “that at least two battery modules are necessary in order to create a
battery stack” based on an extrinsic definition of the term “stack” (emphasis
added). In support of this argument, Appellants refer to The Cambridge
Dictionary Online. App. Br. 11. See also Reply Br. 1—2. We are not
persuaded by this line of argument.
In construing claims, our reviewing court
gives primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the
specification. Additionally, the prosecution history, while not
literally within the patent document, serves as intrinsic evidence
for purposes of claim construction. This remains true in
construing patent claims before the PTO. See In re Morris, 111
F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applying this principle to the case before us, we observe that claim 1
states that “each battery stack include[es] at least one battery module.”
(emphasis added). The Specification expressly supports this claim language.
See Spec. ^fl[ 3, 4, 65. When, as here, the language of claim 1 is clear and
unambiguous, and has express support in the Specification, we see no need
to consult the extrinsic evidence provided by Appellants. App. Br. 11.
Therefore, we decline Appellants’ invitation urging us to adopt a
construction that would expressly contradict the limitation requiring each
battery stack to include “at least one battery module” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner’s claim construction.
4
Appeal 2017-002458
Application 13/620,433
Appellants argue the teachings of Baggaley would discourage a
person of ordinary skill in the art from stacking the cells in the manner
claimed by Appellants. (App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 2—3). Such arguments
fail to persuade us of reversible error because they presume our adoption of
Appellants’ preferred definition of the term battery stack (i.e., a stack
necessarily includes at least two battery modules).
Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments regarding the combinability of
Baggaley and Shen (App. Br. 13—16) reveal no reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that the skilled artisan would have been motivated
to combine the teachings of these references. Rather, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 11) that Baggaley “does not appear to teach ‘keeping battery
pack design at a minimal thickness for commercial use’” as Appellants urge.
App. Br. 13—14. We emphasize that Appellants provide no citation to
support their characterization of Baggaley as desiring the “minimal
thickness” of batteries. Moreover, we note that Baggaley recognizes that it
was known that “thin” batteries are easily damaged and can cause fires.
Baggaley 1:15—27. Even further, Appellants fail to challenge the
Examiner’s determination (Ans. 11—12) that “the teachings of Shen do not
appear to suggest that further modularization of Baggaley would necessarily
increase the profile of’ his battery pack (emphasis added). See Reply Br.,
generally.
Notwithstanding this, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the various arrangements of battery modules, such as beside one
another or on top of one another. (See Baggaley and Shen). As such, a
person of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized the advantages
and/or disadvantages of arranging battery modules on top of one another.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art who did not desire the
5
Appeal 2017-002458
Application 13/620,433
improvements associated with thin battery arrangements would have been
motivated to place modules on top of one another. Cf. In re Larson, 340
F.2d 965, 969 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle
which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid
carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and
In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch
member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and further comprises “at least one
fastener mounted to the battery stack cover.”
The Examiner finds that Baggaley discloses this limitation. Final Act.
6—7. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Baggaley’s housing 40 as
represented in Figure 3 corresponds to the recited “battery stack cover.” Id.
at 6. Based on Baggaley’s disclosure regarding Figure 3 that “[e]ach pocket
34 includes a means of temporarily retaining the modules 2 in the pocket”
which “may consist of one or more friction detents or any variety of
mechanisms typically used for the purpose” (5:44-48), the Examiner reasons
that “each housing necessarily possesses a protrusion (i.e., a “fastener”) to
correspond with the friction detents disposed in each tray.” Final Act. 6.
We have considered Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 16—18; Reply
Br. 4—5) and are unpersuaded that Appellants have identified any reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion within
Baggaley to modify the cover. App. Br. 17. This argument fails to identify
reversible error because it reflects a misunderstanding of the underlying
rejection. The Examiner does not propose a modification to Baggaley’s
6
Appeal 2017-002458
Application 13/620,433
cover to include a fastener, but finds that Baggaley’s cover “necessarily
possesses” such a fastener “to correspond with the friction detents disposed
in each tray.” Final Act. 6.
Appellants assert that Baggaley “elaborate[s] that... the use of
friction detents [] may effectively eliminate the need for a complementary
fastener by gripping on the battery cover itself.” App. Br. 17—18. As
correctly noted by the Examiner (Ans. 15), such elaboration does not appear
to be disclosed in Baggaley, and Appellants have failed to identify a specific
passage in Baggaley to support this argument. Moreover, this argument
supports the Examiner’s finding that Baggaley’s cover inherently possesses
a fastener. Final Act. 6.
It follows that we find Appellants’ contentions that Baggaley fails to
teach or suggest the recited fastener (App. Br. 18, Reply Br. 4) unpersuasive.
We emphasize here that Appellants’ arguments focus solely on the teachings
of Baggaley. However, a reference stands for all of the specific teachings
thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have
reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1264—65 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, we agree with the Examiner that “the
skilled artisan would reasonably understand that the friction detents
disclosed by Baggaley implicitly require a corresponding structure, e.g.[,] a
hole or indent, in the battery cover in order to function as a fastening
mechanism.” Ans. 15. Such corresponding structure would be required in
order to carry out the desired function of “retaining” the modules in the
pocket. Baggaley 5:45—46. See also id. at 7:15—16 (disclosing that, in
Figure 4, “[a] cover 54 secures the modules 2 in place.” (emphasis added)).
Appellants have advanced no convincing technical rationale explaining how,
7
Appeal 2017-002458
Application 13/620,433
precisely, Baggaley’s cover can “retain” or “secure” the modules without
such corresponding structure.
Moreover, we observe that Baggaley’s friction detents are but one of
“any of a variety of mechanisms” which can be used for the purpose of
retaining or securing the modules. Baggaley 5:47—48. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 3 for the reasons given by the Examiner in the
Final Action and in the Answer.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1—3, 7, and 24 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).
AFFIRMED
8