Ex Parte Goesmann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 12, 201814052234 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018) 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. 14/052,234 10/11/2013 Hubertus Goesmann 080437.65719US 2985 23911 7590 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 14300 WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300 EXAMINER LYNCH, VICTORIA HOM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2018 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): edocket @ crowell. com tche @ crowell. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUBERTUS GOESMANN and BJOERN LATH Appeal 2017-005572 Application 14/052,234 Technology Center 1700 Before JULIA HEANEY, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JRAdministrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seeks our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 15-23 of Application 14/052,234 as anticipated by Suzuki.3 Final Act. 3-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed Oct. 11, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated June 29, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Nov. 17, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated Dec. 16, 2016 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief filed Feb. 15, 2017 (“Reply Br.”) 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, which according to the Appeal Brief is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 3 Suzuki et al., US 5,756,227, iss. May 26, 1998 (“Suzuki”). Appeal 2017-005572 Application 14/052,234 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to an energy storage module for a motor vehicle battery, comprising a plurality of prismatic storage cells which, stacked in at least one row, are arranged behind one another and are braced between two end plates by way of tie rods. Spec. ^ 2; Appeal Br. 2. According to Appellant’s Specification, “[bjecause of the geometrically narrow dimensions of the cells, the cell heat can no longer be sufficiently removed by way of the cell floor in conventional modules.” Spec. ^ 8. The Specification further describes that the tie rods carry out several functions: fixing the storage cells in place during mounting; bracing the end plates; and removing heat from the storage cells to a cooling device. Spec. 6-7. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An energy storage module for a device for supplying voltage of a motor vehicle, the energy storage module comprising a plurality of prismatic storage cells, which, stacked in at least one row, are arranged behind one another and braced between two end plates by at least two tie rods, wherein each of the at least two tie rods is constructed as a one-piece heat- conducting plate for removing the heat from the plurality of prismatic storage cells to a cooling device, wherein the energy storage module has a front side, a back side situated opposite the front side, and two lateral surfaces extending between the two end plates and between the front side and the back side, wherein the plurality of prismatic storage cells have connection terminals which, in the case of all storage cells, are jointly arranged on a front side of the energy storage module, wherein at the back side of the energy storage module, no connection terminals are arranged, wherein a first part of each of the at least two tie rods resting at least partially against the back side of the energy 2 Appeal 2017-005572 Application 14/052,234 storage module, and a second part of each of said at least two tie rods resting partially against a corresponding one of the two lateral surfaces of the energy storage module, and wherein the second part of each of the at least two tie rods extends, from the back side to the front side, over an entire height of the energy storage module. App. Br. 8, Claims App. DISCUSSION Appellant separately argues only claims 1,3, and 4. Appeal Br. 5, 8- 9. Accordingly, we discuss those claims below; dependent claims 5, 7, 8, and 15-23 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013). We affirm the anticipatory rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 15-23 for the reasons presented by the Examiner. However, we reverse the anticipatory rejection of claim 4 for the reasons given by Appellant. Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Suzuki’s battery assembly 500 is an energy storage module comprising each of the elements recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on the embodiment of Suzuki’s Figure 11 and finds that heat transfer plates 170 correspond to the tie rods of claim 1, and holder plates 20 and 40 correspond to the claimed end plates. Id. The Examiner further finds that Suzuki’s heat-exchange planar members 170a and 170b correspond to “a first part” and “a second part” of the tie rods “resting partially against” respective surfaces of the energy storage module as recited in claim 1. Id. at 4. 3 Appeal 2017-005572 Application 14/052,234 Figure 11 depicts an exploded perspective view of a battery assembly according to an embodiment of Suzuki. Suzuki 2:26-28. Appellant argues that Suzuki does not anticipate, essentially because it does not teach three of the elements as recited in claim 1: “tie rods;” “lateral surfaces;” and “a second part of each of said at least two tie rods resting partially against a corresponding one of the two lateral surfaces of the energy storage module.” Appeal Br. 3-6. Appellant contends that heat transfer plates 170 cannot be equated with the claimed “tie rods” because they do not brace the batteries lOa-lOj between holder plates 20 and 40 (id. at 3, citing Suzuki Fig. 11 and 8:34-39), but rather that Suzuki’s upper and lower rods 62, 64 brace the batteries between the holder plates. Id. at 4, citing Suzuki 4:16-38. Appellant further contends that Suzuki’s “lateral surfaces” as identified by the Examiner “are each confined to opposite ends of the module in Suzuki, and therefore cannot extend between the two holder 4 Appeal 2017-005572 Application 14/052,234 plates 20, 40 (equated with the claimed “end plates”).” Appeal Br. 5. Finally, Appellant contends that heat transfer plates 170 do not rest against “lateral surfaces” because the heat transfer plates are sandwiched between the batteries lOa-lOj and not at an end of the assembly 500. Id. at 5-6, citing Suzuki 8:35-40. Specifically, Appellant contends that the embodiment of Suzuki’s Figure 11 does not indicate that heat transfer plates 170 are not sandwiched between the individual batteries lOa-lOj, and that if the heat transfer plates actually rested against the lateral surfaces, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect Suzuki to “indicate that heat is radiated from those lateral surfaces, and not confine its description of heat radiation as being from the bottom of the battery assembly, as [it] does in [8:46-49].” Id. at 6, citing Suzuki 8:46^19. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Suzuki’s rods 62 and 64 perform the function of bracing the row of batteries, and therefore Suzuki’s heat transfer plates 170 are not “tie rods,” because claim 1 is open ended and does not exclude structures other than the tie rods from bracing the stack of storage cells. Appellant’s reliance on Suzuki’s description of rods 62 and 64 does not counter the Examiner’s finding that heat transfer plates 170 also perform a bracing function. Further, even though the Examiner does not rely on Suzuki’s text to show that heat transfer plates 170 brace the stack of storage cells, the Examiner’s reliance on Suzuki Figure 11 to show that heat transfer plates 170 correspond to the claimed tie rods is reasonable. Appellant’s argument that the side surfaces of Suzuki’s unit batteries, as identified by the Examiner, are not “lateral surfaces” is not persuasive because claim 1 does not require that the lateral surfaces extend to opposite ends of the storage module. Appellant’s argument is implicitly based on an 5 Appeal 2017-005572 Application 14/052,234 interpretation of the claim language “two lateral surfaces extending between the two end plates and between the front side and the back side” that only encompasses a lateral surface that extends the entire distance between the two end plates, but Appellant does not point to any evidence in the Specification to support that interpretation. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2-3. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “lateral surfaces” encompasses surfaces between the two end plates and the front and back side of the module, such as the side surfaces of Suzuki’s batteries. Further, Appellant’s argument that Suzuki’s text does not explicitly state that heat transfer plates 170 rest against the lateral surfaces of assembly 500 does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings because the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 11 as showing the position of heat transfer plates 170 in relation to the lateral surfaces is reasonable. Therefore, Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 3 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites that “the second part of each of the at least two tie rods is connected with the two end plates.” Appeal Br. 8; Claims App. The Examiner finds that Suzuki’s Figure 11 shows that second part 170a of each of the tie rods is connected with the two end plates 20 and 40. Final Act. 4 (citing Suzuki 4:15-35); Ans. 3. Appellant argues that that Suzuki Figure 11 shows that the heat- transfer plates are not connected to the holders because they are not located at the ends of the assembly 500 and include recesses 21 to allow placement of rods 62, 64. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Claim 3 does not specify how the tie rods are connected with the end plates. The Examiner’s finding that Suzuki Figure 11 shows a connection between 170a and end plates 20 and 40 is reasonable and supported by Suzuki. 6 Appeal 2017-005572 Application 14/052,234 Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites that “the first part of each of the at least two tie rods is spaced away from the end plates.” Appeal Br. 8; Claims App. The Examiner finds that Suzuki’s Figure 11 shows that 170b is spaced apart from the end plates 20 and 40. Final Act 5; Ans. 3. This finding, however, conflicts with the Examiner’s finding that Figure 11 shows heat transfer plate 170 resting against the lateral surface of assembly 500. App. Br. 6-7. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that Suzuki teaches all of the elements of claim 4. SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 15-23. We reverse the rejection of claim 4. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation