Ex Parte Gunther et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2019

14476168 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/476,168 09/03/2014
46442 7590 03/19/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tom M. Gunther
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.
83464879;67186-123
PUSl
1022
EXAMINER
ZHANG, HAIXIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2019 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOM M. GUNTHER, 1
Rajaram Subramanian, Adam Denlinger, Stuart Schreiber, and
Ronald D. Gilland
Appeal2018-000443
Application 14/476,168
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Tom M. Gunther, Rajaram Subramanian, Adam Denlinger, Stuart
Schreiber, and Ronald D. Gilland ("Gunther") timely appeal
1 The applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and hence the appellant under
35 U.S.C. § 134, is the real party in interest, identified as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC, which is owned ultimately by Ford Motor Company.
(Appeal Brief, filed 17 July 2017.)
Appeal2018-000443
Application 14/476,168
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1, 3-12, 14,
15, and 21-24. 3 We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse
OPINION
A. Introduction 4
The subject matter on appeal relates to a battery assembly said to be
useful in electrified vehicles. (Spec. 1 [0001].) Such battery assemblies
include plural battery cells that are connected in series or in series-parallel
"in order to obtain the voltage and power levels that are necessary to drive
the electrified vehicle." (Id. at [0003].) The electric terminals of the cells
must be electrically connected to one another reliably, and bus bars are said
to be used, typically, to make the electrical connections. (Id.) Assembly is
said to be facilitated by providing terminal holders that at least partially
surround the terminals, and that have a "locating feature to position the first
terminal holder relative to a second terminal holder." (Id. at [0004].) In an
embodiment, the two cells are positioned so a buss bar may be welded to the
electrical terminals. (Id. at [0005].)
Figure 5, reproduced on the following page, shows a view of battery
array 24 during assembly. (Spec. 4 [0029].) Cells 60 have terminal
2 Office Action mailed 18 April 2017 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR").
3 Remaining copending claims 25-27, previously withdrawn from
consideration by the Examiner (FR 1, § 5a), were canceled by an
amendment filed 17 August 201 7, that was entered 8 September 2017.
4 Application 14/476,168, Terminal locatingfeaturefor a battery assembly,
filed 03 September 2014. We refer to the '"168 Specification," which we
cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2018-000443
Application 14/476,168
holders 74 that surround terminals 70. (Id. at 6 [0043]-[0044].) Terminal
holders 74 have locating feature 90e, which engages locating feature 90a on
the adjacent terminal holder 74' when the cells are moved toward each other
along axis A. (Id. at 7 [0050]-[0052].)
{Figure 5 is shown below}
A_,,
{Figure 5 shows an array of cells 60 during assembly along axis A, with
locating features 90e and 90a on terminal holders 74}
Sole independent claim 1 is representative and reads:
A battery assembly [24 5], comprising:
a first terminal holder [74]; and
a first terminal [70] of a first battery cell [60]
at least partially surrounded by the first terminal holder [74],
wherein the first terminal holder [74] includes
a locating feature [90]
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal2018-000443
Application 14/476,168
to position the first terminal holder [74] relative to
a second terminal holder [74'] that
at least partially surrounds a second terminal [70'] of
a different, second battery cell [ 60 '].
(Claims App., Br. 1 O; some formatting, emphasis, and bracketed labels to
elements shown in Figures 3 and 5 added.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection 6, 7 :
A. Claims 1, 3-12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) in view ofKruger. 8
B. Claims 1 and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(2) in view of Tanaka. 9
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
To be anticipatory, a reference must describe, either expressly or
inherently, each and every claim limitation, arranged or combined as
required by the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
6 Examiner's Answer mailed 13 September 2016 ("Ans.").
7 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
8 Duane D. Kruger et al., Apparatus and method for securing battery cell
packs, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0234119 Al (2006).
9 Tsutomu Tanaka, Cover equipped electrical connection device and a
cover for an electrical connection device, U.S. Patent No. 5,804,770 (1998).
4
Appeal2018-000443
Application 14/476,168
Rejection of Claims 1, 3-12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) in view
of Kruger
Gunther urges the Examiner erred harmfully in finding that the
"locating features" ( and the corresponding apertures, identified for the first
time in the "Response to Arguments" section of the Answer (Ans. 11))
correspond to the locating feature recited in claim 1. (Br. 3, 3d full para.)
Kruger Figure 2, as annotated by the Examiner, is shown below.
N
{Figure 2: exploded view of lithium battery cell 10 sandwiched by frame
members 20 and 30.}
5
Appeal2018-000443
Application 14/476,168
As Gunter points out, the Examiner's findings are harmful error
because the "locating features" identified by the Examiner, which appear to
correspond to tangs 31 on frame member 30, position the first terminal
holder (frame member 30) with respect to frame member 20. But frame
member 20 does not "at least partially surround[] a second terminal of a
different, second battery cell" as required by claim 1 (Claims App., Br. 10,
emphasis added). Rather, as shown in Figure 2, each of frames 20 and 30
"at least partially surround[]" terminal anode electrode 11 and terminal
cathode electrode 12 of the same cell. The weight of the evidence supports
these findings.
The Examiner makes no findings regarding the purported anticipation
of the further limitations of the dependent claims that could cure this
fundamental defect. 10
We therefore reverse this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) in
view of Kruger.
Rejection of Claims 1 and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
in view of Tanaka
Regarding this rejection, Gunther urges that the Examiner has merely
cited Tanaka Figures 2-7 and the description at column 7, line 5, to
column 8, line 65, without providing any detail, leaving the Appellant to
guess at the substance of the rejection. (Br. 8, last two paras.)
10 In the event of further examination, the attentions of the Examiner and of
Gunther are drawn to pins 25 and sockets 26, which allow frame 20 to
interlock with an overlying frame 30.
6
Appeal2018-000443
Application 14/476,168
Review of the Final Rejection, including the "Response to
Arguments" section, and the Advisory Action 11 confirms Gunther's
representations. We decline to hold that mere reference to a figure and the
accompanying description can never suffice to demonstrate anticipation of
claimed subject matter. However, as explained below, the present claims
and the corresponding embodiments are sufficiently different from the
embodiments described by Tanaka 12, that some detailed explanation is
required, in the words of the statute, "to notify the applicant ... stating the
reasons for such rejection ... together with such information and references
as may be useful in judging the propriety if continuing the prosecution of his
application .... " 35 U.S.C. § I32(a). Reversal on this basis alone would not
be unwarranted in the posture of this case.
Tanaka relates to "a cover for an electrical connection device which
can easily cope with a change in a distance between electrical posts."
(Tanaka col 1, 11. 51---63.) More specifically, as shown in Figure 3, below,
{Figure 3: cross section of the connection device cover ( annotations added)}
11 Advisory Action, entered 01 June 2017 ("Adv.").
12 Moreover, there appears to have been no other discussion of Tanaka in the
record that might justify a "short-cut."
7
Appeal2018-000443
Application 14/476,168
cover 5 is provided for, e.g., two battery posts 51 of neighboring batteries 50
that are electrically connected by "battery connection terminal 1," which
comprises flexible woven wire 2 and connection members 3 made of metal
plates with insertion holes 4 for the battery posts.
In order to cope easily with a change in distance between the battery
posts, as shown in Figure 1, below, cover 5 comprises cover elements 6, 7,
3
{Figure 1: exploded view of cover 5 and connection member 3 for a cover
for an electrical connection device}
which include receptacles 8, 8 and hollow connection members 9, 10.
Receptacles 8, 8 accommodate connection members 3 and battery posts 51.
Hollow connection members 9, 10, hold woven wire 2, and are provided
with fixed lower portion 12 and movable upper portion 13, which is attached
to 12 via hinge 14. Upper portion 13 is further hinged at 37 to provide a
lid 28 for access to post 51, which may be secured to connection member 3
by nut 54.
In the Response to Argument section of the Answer, the Examiner, for
the first time, identifies "connection portion 10" as the first terminal holder,
8
Appeal2018-000443
Application 14/476,168
"connection portion 9" as the second terminal holder, and "stepped
portion lOa" and "jaw portion 25" as a locating feature. (Ans. 29, 11. 3-7.)
The Examiner finds further that connection portion 9 "at least partially
surrounds a second terminal of a different, second battery cell." (Id. at 11. 7-
-8, citing Figures 2--4 of Tanaka.)
There appear to be no definitions in the '168 Specification that
preclude "stepped portion lOa," which fits slidingly inside connection
portion 9, and "jaw portion 25," which prevents connection portions 9, 10,
of cover elements 6 and 7 from coming apart, from being characterized as a
"locating feature to position the first terminal holder relative to a second
terminal holder".
However, we find this rejection fatally flawed by the absence of
evidence that element 10, identified by the Examiner as the "first terminal
holder," and element 9, identified by the Examiner as the "second terminal
holder," meet the limitation that they "at least partially surround[]" the
corresponding battery cell terminal.
We therefore reverse the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) in view of Tanaka.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 14, 15, and 21-
24 is reversed.
REVERSED
9