Ex Parte Callahan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 13, 2019

14188667 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/188,667 02/24/2014 122219 7590 06/17/2019 Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company One North Franklin Street Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60606 Kevin S. Callahan 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. 13-0342-US-NP 7495 EXAMINER LEE,JAMES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1725 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/17/2019 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patentadmin@boeing.com bmatthias@millermatthiashull.com ynunez@millermatthiashull.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEVIN S. CALLAHAN, BRUCE L. DROLEN, JAMES C. RUSSELL, JOHN R. LOWELL, THOMAS P. BARRERA, and TIMOTHY R. NORTH Appeal2018-007198 Application 14/188,667 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of February 24, 2014 as amended on February 1, 2016 (Spec.), Final Office Action of October 5, 2017 (Final), Appeal Brief of January 15, 2018 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of May 2, 2018 (Ans.), and Reply Brief of June 25, 2018 (Reply Br.). 2 The Boeing Company is the applicant under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2018-007198 Application 14/188,667 The claims are directed to a battery (see, e.g., claims 1 and 15), and a battery system (see, e.g., claim 18). All of the claims require the battery include a chassis, such as chassis 220 shown in Figure 3. Spec. ,r 24. The chassis holds a plurality of rechargeable battery cells, 3 such as cell 110 shown in Figure 1. Spec. ,r,r 15, 24. The Specification describes, and Figure 3 shows, the chassis 220 as including lower fixation plate 240 located at the bottom of frame 230. Spec. ,r 19. The battery cells are placed on segments 350 of lower fixation plate 240. Spec. ,r 26. Then upper fixation plate 250 is located "over the battery cells 110 to restrain the battery cells 110 within the frame 230." Spec. ,r 19; see also Spec. ,r 26 ("The segments 360 of the upper fixation plate 250 are then placed over the battery cells 110 and fastened to the walls 320 and 330."). We reproduce claim 1, with the claim limitations of particular interest in this appeal highlighted, to further illustrate: 1. A rechargeable battery comprising: a chassis including a lower fixation plate having a substrate divided into a plurality of segments; and a plurality of battery cells supported by the substrate of the lower fixation plate with a single battery cell disposed on each segment; wherein the substrate is a non-conductive material, and defines at least one flow channel in each segment positioned to collect condensate from the battery cells and move the collected condensate away from the battery cells; 3 Although claim 1 does not use the word "rechargeable" before "battery cells," the cells must be rechargeable given the battery is rechargeable as recited in the preamble. 2 Appeal2018-007198 Application 14/188,667 wherein the chassis further includes an upper fixation plate configured to hold the battery cells within the chassis; the upper fixation plate having a plurality of segments corresponding to those of the lower fixation plate; and wherein the upper fixation plate is constructed of a non- conductive material. Appeal Br. 14 (claims appendix)(emphasis added). The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103: A. Claims 1--4, 7, 12, and 18 as obvious over Tsumaki4 in view of Kurita5 Â· ' B. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 19 as obvious over Tsumaki in view ofKurita and MacLean6; C. Claim 9 as obvious over Tsumaki in in view ofKurita and Byun7; D. Claims 10, 15, and 20 as obvious over Tsumaki in view ofKurita and Goda8â€¢ ' E. Claim 11 as obvious over Tsumaki in view of Kurita and Hu9; F. Claims 13 and 14 as obvious over Tsumaki in view ofKurita and Corrigan 10; G. Claim 16 as obvious over Tsumaki in view of Kurita, Goda, and MacLean; 4 Tsumaki et al., US 2012/0189886 Al, published July 26, 2012. 5 Kurita, US 2013/0149583 Al, published June 13, 2013. 6 MacLean et al., US 2009/0241442 Al, published Oct. 1, 2009. 7 Byun et al., US 2008/0254359 Al, published Oct. 16, 2008. 8 Goda et al., US 2003/0077505 Al, published Apr. 24, 2003. 9 Hu et al., US 2011/0159340 Al, published June 30, 2011. 10 Corrigan et al., US 6,255,015 Bl, issued July 3, 2001. 3 Appeal2018-007198 Application 14/188,667 H. Claim 17 as obvious over Tsumaki in view of Kurita, Goda, and Byun. OPINION All of the Examiner's rejections rely on Tsumaki as teaching an upper fixation plate having the structure required by Appellant's claims. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Tsumaki's Figures IA and 2A show a top cover of a battery pack with the necessary structure. We disagree. Tsumaki's top cover, which presumably is the top of the enclosure surrounding chamber 3, is separated from the batteries by an air space (upper part of chamber 3). See Figs. IA, 2A. Supporting parts 6 of bottom part 3a support and restrain the battery cells 2. Tsumaki ,r 28; Figs. 1 A, 2A. However, the top of the battery cells 2 remain unrestrained and, instead, the upper portion of chamber 3 allows air (arrows) to move up through the cover and out through discharge outlet 8. Tsumaki ,r 31; Figs. 1 A, 2A. Therefore, the top cover of Tsumaki neither has segments corresponding to those of the lower fixation plate nor is it "configured to hold the battery cells within the chassis." Of particular interest in this appeal is the meaning of "segments." Compare Final 2-3, and Ans. 23, with Appeal Br. 7-8, and Reply Br. 2. The Examiner determines that the top cover of Tsumaki "can be arbitrarily divided into segments/regions that correspond to those of the flat plate of bottom part (3a))." Final 3. Appellant disagrees. Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2. We tum to the Specification to determine the meaning of "segments." [ A ]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words 4 Appeal2018-007198 Application 14/188,667 in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Specification uses the word "segments" to identify segments 350 in lower fixation plate 240 and segments 360 in upper fixation plate 250. Spec. ,r,r 25-26. According to the Specification: A lower fixation plate 240 is shown at the bottom of the frame 230. The lower fixation plate 240 includes multiple segments 350 that are arranged side by side. The upper fixation plate 250 includes corresponding segments 360. Eight battery cells 110 are placed on the segments 350 of the lower fixation plate 240 such that the rupture plates 150 are coincident with the vent cutouts 310. The segments 360 of the upper fixation plate 250 are then placed over the battery cells 110 andfastened to the walls 320 and 330. Spec. ,r,r 25-26 ( emphasis added). Segments 350 and 360 are shown in Figure 3. Segments 360, which are to correspond to segments 350, include cell dividers, i.e., the vertical structures shown in Figure 3. This is evident from the portion of Figure 3 reproduced below: 5 Appeal2018-007198 Application 14/188,667 Top-right portion of Figure 3 with reference numeral 360 pointing to the vertical portion of the top-most segment Thus, reading the word "segment" in a manner consistent with the Specification requires some structure, such as cell dividers, that creates segments. Tsumaki has such a structure in the bottom part 3a (supporting parts 6), but does not have the required corresponding segment structure at the top that is "configured to hold the battery cells within the chassis." Because none of the further references relied on by the Examiner cure the deficiency, we do not sustain any of the rejections. CONCLUSION In summary: 1--4, 7, 12, Â§ 103 Tsumaki, Kurita 1--4, 7, 12, 18 18 5,6, 8, 19 Â§ 103 +MacLean 5,6, 8, 19 9 Â§ 103 +Byun 9 10, 15,20 Â§ 103 +Goda 10, 15,20 11 Â§ 103 +Hu 11 13, 14 Â§ 103 +Corri an 13, 14 16 Â§ 103 +Goda, 16 MacLean 17 Â§ 103 +Goda, Byun 17 Outcome 1-20 6 Appeal2018-007198 Application 14/188,667 DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 7