Ex Parte Bulur et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201713620433 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation