Ex Parte Gao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 201713109054 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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. 13/109,054 05/17/2011 Dalong Gao P013296-RD-MJL 1671 72823 7590 Quinn IP Law 21500 Haggerty Road Suite 300 Northville, MI 48167 03/09/2017 EXAMINER HASKE, WOJCIECH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2017 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): amb@quinnlawgroup.com U S Docketing @ quinnlawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DALONG GAO and JOHN PATRICK SPICER1 Appeal 2016-000183 Application 13/109,054 Technology Center 1700 Before: MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—14 and 19—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the assignee of the instant application. Appeal Br. 3. 2 In our Decision below we refer to the Specification filed May 17, 2011 (Spec.), the Final Office Action mailed October 23, 2014 (Final Act.), the Appeal Brief filed March 23, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 27, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed September 18, 2015 (Reply Br.). Appeal 2016-000183 Application 13/109,054 STATEMENT OF CASE The claims are directed to a battery module that includes a prismatic stack-type battery module for a battery pack. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A battery module comprising: a plurality of electrochemical battery cells positioned adjacent each other, with each of the electrochemical battery cells including a positive cell tab and a negative cell tab; a single, interconnecting member coupled to each of the electrochemical battery cells and configured for electrically connecting all of the positive cell tabs of all of the plurality of electrochemical battery cells, and for electrically connecting all of the negative cell tabs of all of the plurality of electrochemical battery cells; wherein the interconnecting member includes a plurality of connecting elements and defines a first slot and a second slot disposed adjacent opposing sides of each connecting element; wherein a plurality of positive cell tabs and a plurality of negative cell tabs extend through each of the second slots and the first slots respectively, and are formed into a parallel relationship relative to the connecting element adjacent thereto; and a plurality of fastening mechanisms, with each fastening mechanism connecting the positive cell tabs and the negative cell tabs extending through the first slot and the second slot adjacent each connecting element to each other, and to the connecting element disposed there between; wherein the interconnecting member includes a substantially planar structure disposed on a plane thereof, and defines a first surface and an opposing second surface, with each of the first surface and the second surface substantially parallel with the plane of the interconnecting member; and wherein the plurality of electrochemical battery cells are disposed adjacent the first surface of the interconnecting member, and with the fastening mechanisms engaging the positive cell tabs and the negative cell tabs from the second surface of the interconnecting member. 2 Appeal 2016-000183 Application 13/109,054 Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 13. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: A. Claims 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. B. Claims 1—14 and 19—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bjork in view of Meschter and Kim. Appellants seek our review of rejections B. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants argue claim 1 and do not present any argument, separate from what is argued for claim 1, for claims 2—14 and 19—22. See generally Appeal Br. 6—12. Therefore, we focus our discussion on claim 1 to resolve the issues on appeal. OPINION Rejection A— Improper Dependent Form (claims 19, 20, and 22) The Examiner rejects claims 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §112,14 as being written in improper dependent form. Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that because claims 19, 20, and 22 fail to further limit the claims beyond the subject matter of the independent claims from which they depend, claims 19, 20, and 22 are unpatentable. Id. Appellants do not argue the merits of the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112,14, and therefore, fail to identify any reversible error in the 3 Appeal 2016-000183 Application 13/109,054 Examiner’s rejection. Thus, we summarily affirm Rejection A as applied to claims 19, 20, and 22. Rejection B — Obviousness (claims 1—14 and 19—22) The Examiner rejects claims 1—14 and 19—22 as obvious in view of Bjork, Meschter, and Kim. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Bjork teaches a battery module having the claimed elements. Id. 3^4. But, the Examiner acknowledges that Bjork does not disclose a plurality of positive cell tabs and a plurality of negative cell tabs extend through each of the second slots and the first slots respectively; and a plurality of fastening mechanisms, with each fastening mechanism connecting the positive cell tabs and the negative cell tabs extending through the first slot and the second slot adjacent each connecting element to each other, and to the connecting element disposed therebetween[.] Id. at 4. The Examiner finds, however, that Meschter teaches a battery with a plurality of electrodes stacks connected in parallel where the electrodes have tabs that are folded over and connected with a top bracket. Id. at 5. The Examiner reasons that one skilled in the art would have replaced the cells of Bjork with the half stack of electrodes of Meschter because Meschter teaches doing so would result in “low resistance internal connections and compact, low volume terminal connections to maximize power-producing volume [0017].” Id. The Examiner further acknowledges that both Bjork and Meschter teach connection of battery cells in parallel but that Kim teaches serially connected units. The Examiner further reasons that the skilled artisan would have modified the Bjork/Meschter cells to be connected serially because a serial connection “is suitable to form one 4 Appeal 2016-000183 Application 13/109,054 module for motor drive of machines requiring high power source such as hybrid electric vehicles.” Id. at 6. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Bjork is inoperable and that the modifications necessary to create an operable combination would change the principle of operation of the Bjork battery modules. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants provide the following depiction of the Bjork/Meschter/Kim battery module: Id. at 11. According to Appellants, such a design would render the system inoperable and “[t]he only way to render the battery module disclosed in the Bjork reference operable with the modifications suggested by the Examiner would be to eliminate entirely the interconnecting clamps 40b.” Id. But, Appellants contend that removing interconnecting clamps 40b would significantly alter the design of Bjork and change its principle of operation. Id. at 12; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s modification of Bjork to eliminate 40b also results in “effectively eliminat[ing] half of the connecting elements . . . and completely reconfigure[s] the manner in which the battery cells are connected to each other.” Reply Br. 3. 5 Appeal 2016-000183 Application 13/109,054 The Examiner agrees with Appellants that the design, as depicted by Appellants (above and at Appeal Br. 11), “would render the battery module inoperable because the sets of two cells . . . are not connected in series but rather they are shorted.”3 Ans. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner explains that the flaw of [the] rational [sic rationale] proposed by the applicant is that such configuration does not connect the battery cells in series because battery cells connected in series require positive terminal of a first battery cell or a first battery cell stack to be electrically connected to the negative terminal of a second battery cell or a second battery cell stack, and the positive terminal of the second battery cell or a second battery cell stack to be electrically connected to the negative terminal of a third battery cell or battery cell stack, and so on. Such serially connected battery cells of battery cell stacks must have two open (uncapped) terminals 14 at the end of the series, to which load will be connected .... Id. at 4—5. Rather, the Examiner explains that the modifications proposed under the rejection would produce the following schematic: Plurality of stacked battery cells Connecting element 3 The Examiner also notes that the rejection does not rely upon interconnecting element 40b. Ans. 2. 6 Appeal 2016-000183 Application 13/109,054 Id. at 6. Therefore, according to the Examiner and as shown above, “Bjork modified by Meschter and Kim achieves [the] similar goal of having [a] plurality of parallel connected battery cell[s] that are connected in series.” Id. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of reversible error; but rather, we agree with the reasoning and findings of the Examiner. Combinations of prior art that change the “basic principles under which the [prior art] was designed to operate” may not support a conclusion of obviousness. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959); see also In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (same). However, “[i]t is well- established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (further citations omitted). We understand Appellants to argue that by combining the teachings of Bjork, Meschter, and Kim in a workable manner eliminates structural elements and “is a significant modification that changes the principle of operation of the Bjork reference.” Reply Br. 4. This tenet of “significant modification” is explained in In re Ratti where our reviewing court found that the “suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements ... as well as a change in the basic principles under which the [prior art] construction was designed to operate”—where the prior art differed from the claimed device in that one required rigidity for operation while the other required resiliency. Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813. However here, unlike Ratti, the modification of Bjork proposed 7 Appeal 2016-000183 Application 13/109,054 by the Examiner to remove certain structural elements does not change its principle of operation as a battery, and more specifically, a battery having plurality of parallel connected battery cells that are connected in series. See Bjork TfTf 17—22 and Figs. 1—2. Moreover, Appellants do not identify what principle of operation purportedly has been changed nor do Appellants provide any explanation or evidence of how the operation is different. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Therefore, on this record, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CONCEUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—14 and 19—22 as obvious in view of Bjork, Meschter, and Kim. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—14 and 19—22 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