Ex Parte IQBAL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 2019

14628603 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/628,603 02/23/2015 46442 7590 03/04/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford 400 W. MAPLE RD. SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Asif IQBAL 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. 83500616;67186-158 PUSl CONFIRMATION NO. 7596 EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1722 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/04/2019 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 ASIF IQBAL, DANIEL MILLER, and JAMES LAWRENCE SWOISH Appeal 2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's February 2, 2017 decision finally rejecting claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC (Br. 1). Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' invention is directed to a battery assembly for an electrified vehicle (Spec. ,r 1 ). The Specification describes the use of a cold plate, which is placed in contact with battery cells to thermally manage the heat generated within a high voltage battery assembly (id. at 3). Claims 1, 14, and 25 are representative and are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief ( emphasis added): 1. An assembly, comprising: a top plate piece; a bottom plate piece; and tubing sandwiched between said top plate piece and said bottom plate piece, said tubing include[s] a flange adapted to limit an insertion distance of said tubing between said top plate piece and said bottom plate piece. 14. A battery assembly, comprising: a plurality of battery cells; an enclosure assembly that houses said plurality of battery cells; and a cold plate assembly in contact with said plurality of battery cells, wherein tubing of said cold plate assembly protrudes through a wall of said enclosure assembly, said tubing extending along a linear axis away from an edge of a body of said cold plate assembly. 25. An assembly, comprising: an enclosure assembly; a plate assembly housed inside said enclosure assembly and including a top plate piece, a bottom plate piece, and tubing sandwiched between flared portions of said top plate piece and said bottom plate piece; and 2 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 said tubing protrudes through a wall of said enclosure assembly and extends along a linear axis away from an edge of said plate assembly. (Br. 13, 14, 15). REJECTIONS (1) Claims 14--20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Abels. 2 (2) Claims 1-7, 9-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Yum3 in view of Okada,4 and further in view of Abels. The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of: (i) claims 1-7, 9-13, 21, and 24 over Abels in view of Beltz, 5 (ii) claim 8 over Abels in view of Beltz, and further in view of Schaefer6; and (iii) claim 23 over Yum in view of Okada, Abels, and further in view ofBurgers7 (Ans. 9). Accordingly, the Examiner has indicated that the subject matter of claims 8 and 23 is allowable (id. at 11, 16). With the exception of dependent claims 21 and 22, Appellants' arguments in support of claims 1-25 are directed to limitations recited in independent claims 1, 14, and 25 (see Br. 3-5, 9-10). Accordingly, our discussion will focus on claims 1, 14, and 2 5. Claims 21 and 22 will be discussed separately. 2 Abels et al., US 2012/0237805 Al, published Sept. 20, 2012. 3 Yum et al., US 2016/0164148 Al, published June 9, 2016. 4 Okada et al., US 2009/0142653 Al, published June 4, 2009. 5 Beltz et al., US 2015/0207187 Al, published July 23, 2015. 6 Schaefer et al., US 2014/0072855 Al, published Mar. 13, 2014. 7 Burgers et al., US 2012/0107663 Al, published May 3, 2012. 3 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 DISCUSSION Rejection (I) under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) Figure 1 of Abels, which illustrates a device showing a battery cell Coo-lant Supply -........ ....._ ________ .. and Extt _ ... .. _ .... .,,,.~--- ..... - So:u:rce .~ ..... -- Figure 1 of Abels illustrates details of a device 1 containing a set of battery cell coolers 2 sandwiching a battery cell 4 (Abels ,r 21 ). In rejecting claims 14 and 25, the Examiner finds that Abels describes each of the claimed assembly's components (Final Act. 2-3, citing Abels ,r,r 21-23; Fig. 1 ). The Examiner further finds that "the plurality of battery cells 4 are enclosed in at least a housing" (Final Act. 3; see Abels Fig. 1 ). According to the Examiner, Abels' s "coolant supply and exit source connect to the coolant supply at an end of the plurality of batteries, and is[,] therefore[,] taken to protrude from a wall of the enclosure" (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that although Figure 1 of Abels shows that "[t]he liquid 4 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 coolant supply/exit is present at the bottom edge of the vertically oriented plate coolers, in another embodiment the liquid coolant supply can feed the coolant from a side edge of the plate coolers" (id., citing Abels ,r 21 ). Appellants argue that Abels does not disclose that the requisite tubing protrudes through a wall of the enclosure assembly (see generally Br. 3-5). Specifically, Appellants make the following arguments: (1) Figure 1 of Abels does not show that the tubing extends through an enclosure wall, but that it "extends from a face of the battery cell cooler 2" (id. at 4); (2) the Examiner's evidence that Abels's tubing protrudes through a wall of the enclosure is not supported by a preponderance of evidence because "only portions of the enclosure are illustrated in the cutout view of Figure 1, and it is unclear whether the enclosure includes end walls that extend in front of the battery coolers 2 that include the tubing" at the left of the Figure (id.); (3) "[i]t is just as likely that the battery cell coolers 2 are uncovered by the enclosure, in which case the tubing 18, 20 would not protrude through any wall of the enclosure" (id.); and (4) "a reasonable interpretation of Figure 1 is that the enclosure is generally U-shaped and covers the sides and tops of the array, but not the longitudinal ends of the array" (id. at 4--5). We are not persuaded by these arguments. As the Examiner finds, Abels discloses that the liquid coolant supply can feed the coolant from a side edge of the plate coolers (Final Act. 3, citing Abels ,r 21 ). Moreover, Appellants admit that Figure 1 reasonably discloses that the enclosure covers the sides of the array (Br. 4--5). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Abels discloses that the cold plate assembly's tubing extends from the side of the enclosure in the described alternative embodiment (see Ans. 1 O; Abels ,r 21 ). 5 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 Appellants also argue that Abels does not disclose that the requisite tubing extends along a linear axis away from an edge of said plate assembly (Br. 5). Appellants' argument is not persuasive. As set forth above, Abels explicitly discloses that "the liquid coolant supply can feed the coolant from a side edge of the plate coolers" (Abels ,r 21 ). Therefore, Appellants' argument fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Abels' s tubing extends along a linear axis away from an edge of a body of the cold plate assembly (Ans. 11 ). On the present record, Appellants have not identified error in the Examiner's finding that Appellants' claimed structure is described by Abels. Therefore, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 14 and 25. Claims 15-20 fall with claim 14. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Rejection (2) under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 a. Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Yum's disclosure teaches the elements of the claimed flange (Final Act. 9). The Examiner finds that "flanges 402 and 412 ... are adapted to limit an insertion distance of the tubular body" (id., citing Yum ,r 44, Figure 9). 6 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 Ymn's Figure 9, which illustrates a cross-sectional schematic of a cooling plate assembly, is reproduced below. FIG. 9 Figure 9 illustrates features of a cooling plate assembly including first and second tubular ports 90, 92, cover plate 86, pan member 80, and peripheral flanges 402, 412. With respect to the issue of whether Yum teaches or suggests the disputed limitation "a flange adapted to limit an insertion distance of said tubing between said top plate piece and said bottom plate piece," Appellants make the following principal arguments: (1) Yum's flanges 402, 412 would not limit an insertion distance of the tubing 90, 92 between plate portions (Br. 9), (2) Yum's flanges 402, 412 are designed to abut against a top surface of the cover plate 86 but do not limit an insertion distance between the pan 80 and the cover 86, and (3) neither Okada nor Abels remedy Yum's deficiencies (id., citing Yum ,r 44). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they attack the references individually instead of addressing what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the Examiner finds 7 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 that Okada teaches that the orientation ofYmn's tubes 90, 92 can be modified to protrude through the cooling plates and connect to the coolant feeding device (Ans. 12, citing Okada ,r,r 10, 92; Figure 2). The Examiner further finds that Abels would have suggested sandwiching tubing between a top and bottom plate (Ans. 13, citing Abels ,r,r 22-24). Based on these disclosures, the Examiner determined that, at the time of the invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to protrude Yum's tubing 90, 92 from the side of the cooling plates, as taught by Okada, and be sandwiched between the plates, as taught by Abels, "as this is a simple combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results" (Ans. 7). Although Appellants argue that Yum's flanges would not limit an insertion distance of the tubing between plate portions as recited in claim 1, Appellants' arguments do not address this combination of the prior art (Br. 9). Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-13. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). b. Claims 14 and 25 Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided a reasoned explanation why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art elements used in the rejection (Br. 10). We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner has made reasoned findings that both Yum and Okada teach similar battery cooling systems located at the bottom of the battery pack (Ans. 14). The Examiner thus determined that the rearrangement of Yum's tubing location would have been predictable; Yum and Okada teach that these different locations function to connect to a coolant supply system (id.). The Examiner further finds that Yum similarly teaches: (i) a battery assembly may be 8 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 connected to a coolant supply system and (ii) coolant inlet and outlet tubes may be formed between a pair of coolant plates (id.). Appellants' argument fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner's reasoning that "all [ of] these features taken together function to connect a battery cooling assembly to an external coolant supply system" (id.). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the "substitution of one known orientation for another ... would have achieved predictable results[] and ... [,] therefore[,] would have been obvious" (id.) Appellants' remaining arguments urging reversal of the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 14 and 25 are substantially similar to Appellants' unpersuasive arguments set forth above urging reversal of Rejection 1 of claim 1 (see, e.g., Br. 18). 8 Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejections of claims 14--20, 24, and 25. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). c. Claim 21 Claims 21 and 3 are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief ( emphasis added): 21. The assembly as recited in claim 3, wherein said flared portions include tapered inner walls that limit said insertion distance. 3. The assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein each of said top plate piece and said bottom plate piece include flared portions that overlap said tubing. (Br. 15, 13). 8 Appellants repeat the argument that Abels fails to disclose tubing that protrudes through a wall of an enclosure assembly. 9 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in relying upon Abels' s expanded receptacles 19, 21 as teaching or suggesting the requisite flared portions having tapered inner walls that limit the tubing's insertion distance between a top and bottom plate pieces (id. at 10). In response, the Examiner determines that "the phrase 'that limit [ said] insertion distance' is taken to be an intended use limitation and is not being given patentable weight" (Ans. 15). In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner finds that "the portions 19 and 2 [ 1] explicitly showed a tapered wall which is taken to be capable of limiting insertion distance of the conduits 18 and 20" (Final Act. 12) ( emphasis added). These findings are erroneous because claim 21 defines the structure of the claimed assembly in structural language. Accordingly, the claimed assembly encompasses a structure that must include (i) flared portions having tapered inner walls that overlap a tubing while limiting the tubing's insertion distance between top and bottom plate pieces, as required by claim 21 (which depends from claim 3); and (ii) a flange on the tubing adapted to limit the tubing's insertion distance between top and bottom plate pieces, as required by claim 1. Comark Commc 'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("The doctrine of claim differentiation create[ s] a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope.") In other words, claim 21 requires that the flared portions and the flange must both limit the tubing's insertion distance between the top and bottom plate pieces (see Spec. Fig. 4). On this record, the Examiner has not provided an explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the location of Yum's flanges 402, 412 on tubing such that they 10 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 would limit, in conjunction with Abels's expanded receptacles 19, 21, the tubing's insertion distance between the top and bottom plate pieces. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 21. d. Claim 22 Claim 22 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief ( emphasis added): 22. The assembly as recited in claim 6, comprising a bridge that extends at a transverse angle between said body and a plaiform, said tubing received by said platform. (Br. 15). Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred because Yum's "alleged bridge ... does not extend at a transverse angle between the body and platform of the cooling plate assembly 22" (Br. 10). In response, the Examiner relies on an annotated version of Yum's Figure 2. The Examiner's annotation of Yum's Figure 2, which illustrates a schematic of a portion of a battery pack, is reproduced below. Figure 2 illustrates features of a battery pack portion, including a bridge, a platform, and assembly 22. 11 Appeal2018-002265 Application 14/628,603 According to the Examiner, "the bridge extends at a transverse angle from the cooling plate assembly" (Ans. 16). However, the Examiner's construction of claim 22 impermissibly reads the term "transverse" out of the claim. The plain meaning of "transverse" is defined as "in a position or direction that is at an angle of 90Â° to something else" (see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/transverse). As seen in Figure 2 above, Yum's bridge does not extend at an angle of 90Â° from assembly 22 or the platform within the meaning of claim 22. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 22. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of 14--20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Abels. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-20, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Yum in view of Okada, and further in view of Abels. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Yum in view of Okada, and further in view of Abels. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 12