Ex Parte Gao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2017

13109054 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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.
13/109,054 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