Ex Parte Goesmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2018

14052234 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018)

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