Ex Parte Pflueger et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 21, 2019

14127348 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/127,348 12/18/2013 10800 7590 03/21/2019 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Claus Gerald Pflueger 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. 2178-0788 1598 EXAMINER WEI, ZHONGQING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1727 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLAUS GERALD PFLUEGER, RALF ANGERBAUER, and HOLGERFINK Appeal2018---004769 Application 14/127,348 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 7. (Appeal Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed December 18, 2013, and as amended December 28, 2015, April 4, 2017, June 1, 2017, and August 31, 2017 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated June 7, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed October 20, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer dated February 6, 2018 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed April 3, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellants identify Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal2018---004769 Application 14/127,348 THE INVENTION Appellants state that the invention relates to a battery cell module that comprises a plurality of battery cells. (Spec. 1, 11. 7-13.) Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, is representative and reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief ( emphasis added): 1. A battery cell module, comprising: a plurality of battery cells each having a degassing orifice; and a gas receiving chamber allocated to several battery cells of the plurality of battery cells, the gas receiving chamber defining a cavity configured to receive gases escaping from the several battery cells, wherein the cavity of the gas receiving chamber is directly connected to the degassing orifices of the several battery cells, wherein the gas receiving chamber includes several gas inlet orifices, each gas inlet orifice being flow-connected to a respective degassing orifice of a respective battery cell, and wherein the battery module further comprises at least one multi-limb seal arranged in a connecting region between a first material that forms the respective degassing orifice and a second material that forms a respective gas inlet orifice, the multi-limb seal including an annular region and at least two limbs extending radially outwardly from the annular region, at least one limb of the at least two limbs extending partially in an axial direction in an unloaded state such that, in an installed state, the at least one limb is biased to seal against one of the first material and the second material with an increased pressing force. (Appeal Br. 10, Claims Appendix.) 2 Appeal2018---004769 Application 14/127,348 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, and 7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as follows: 1. Claims 1 and 5 as obvious over Kimoto et al. (JP 2001-110377 A, published April 20, 2001, citations to English Translation of record, "Kimoto") and Li (US 2010/0066034 Al, published on March 18 2010 "Li")Â· and ' ' ' 2. Claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Kimoto, Li, further in view of Nishiki et al. (JP 2006-182264 A, published July 13, 2006, citations to English Translation of record, "Nishiki") and Sherman et al. (US 4,134,940, issued January 16, 1979, "Sherman"); (Final Act. 4--8; Ans. 3.) Rejection 1 ISSUE Appellants argue the limitations of claim 1, indicating that claim 5 is patentable for the reasons discussed for claim 1. (Appeal Br. 8.) Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative, with claim 5 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner found that Kimoto discloses a battery cell module having the limitations recited in claim 1, with the exception of the "at least one multi-limb seal arranged in a connecting region." (Final Act. 4--5.) The Examiner found that Li discloses a multi-limb V-ring seal that provides the benefit of superior flexibility, leak tightness, and longer operational life. (Final Act. 5, citing Li, Abstract, ,r,r 1, 4--14, 27, Figs. 2-5.) The Examiner 3 Appeal2018---004769 Application 14/127,348 determined that it would have been obvious to have substituted the multi- limb seal of Li for the flow-connection (sealing) of Kimoto "at least in order to achieve gas tightness." (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner determined that as a result of the combination, the multi-limb seal would include "at least two limbs extending radially outwardly from the annular region" as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 5---6.) Appellants argue that Li does not disclose at least two limbs that extend radially outward from the annular region. (Appeal Br. 6-7.) Rather, Appellants contend that the Examiner has unreasonably interpreted the annular region as a center from which the radius or rays diverge, and that under a reasonable interpretation, Li discloses one limb extending in a radially outward direction and one limb extending in a radially inward direction. (Id.) Accordingly, the issue with respect to this rejection on appeal is: Have Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner's position that Li discloses "at least two limbs extending radially outwardly from the annular region" as recited in claim 1? DISCUSSION We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for essentially the reasons stated by the Examiner. (Ans. 4---6.) We add the following, primarily for emphasis. First, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's position with respect to Li's disclosure is unreasonable. We emphasize that claim 1 recites a "multi-limb seal including an annular region with at least two limbs extending radially outwardly from the annular region." Thus, claim 1 4 Appeal2018---004769 Application 14/127,348 specifically requires the annular region to be the origin of the extension of the limbs, rather than from the "central axis of the ring seal" as argued by Appellants. (Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3-6.) As a result, we are of the view that it is the Examiner's interpretation that is more consistent and reasonable with the claims and Specification than Appellants' interpretation. 3 Therefore, although Appellants argue that the "common center" in Li should be the central axis of the ring seal, what controls is the claim language, which expressly recites that the limbs extend outwardly from the annular region. Thus, Appellants' contention that "[t]here is no reasonable interpretation by which the annular region itself could be considered a center from which a radius or rays could diverge from" (Appeal Br. 7) is belied by the claim language itself. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Li's disclosure of a V-ring seal as a multi-limb seal, satisfies the requirement in the claims that "at least two limbs extend[] radially outwardly from the annular region." Appellants' remaining arguments, which are all based on the position that the Examiner misinterpreted the claims, are likewise unpersuasive. Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Kimoto and Li. Rejection 2 Appellants does not argue claims 6 and 7 subjected to Rejection 2, separately, but rather indicates that because those claims depend indirectly 3 We observe also that the Specification describes an example of the multi- limb seal as a V-ring seal (Spec., 7, 11. 20-35, 17, 11. 30-32), and as the Examiner found, Li also discloses a V-ring seal (See Final Act. 5; Li, ,r 1). 5 Appeal2018---004769 Application 14/127,348 from claim 1, they are patentable for the reasons discussed for claim 1. (Appeal Br. 8.) Accordingly, we affirm Rejection 2 for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to Rejection 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, and 7. TIME PERIOD 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 ). AFFIRMED 6