Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 17, 2018

14013367 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/013,367 08/29/2013 28395 7590 04/19/2018 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR LeeAnn Wang 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. 83365374 5550 EXAMINER SWENSON, BRIAN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2018 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEEANN WANG and HSIAO-AN HSIEH Appeal2017-007475 Application 14/013,367 Technology Center 3600 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17 and 21-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. According to Appellants, the invention "relates to an inlet plenum for a high voltage battery cooling system" used in a hybrid electric vehicle. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-007475 Application 14/013,367 Spec. i-fi-f l-2. Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A traction battery cooling system comprising: a battery inlet housing having first and second inlets spaced from one another; a first duct coupled to the first inlet; a second duct coupled to the second inlet; and a flow guide vane comprising an airfoil disposed within the battery inlet housing adjacent to the first inlet and positioned to redirect a first flow from the first duct to mix with a second flow from the second duct. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 12, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Wang (US 7,901,827 B2, iss. Mar. 8, 2011). The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wang. The Examiner rejects claims 1-9, 12, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wagner (US 2013/0183564 Al, pub. July 18, 2013) and Guillemin (US 4,947,735, iss. Aug. 14, 1990). The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wagner, Guillemin, and Park (US 2007/0175623 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2007). The Examiner rejects claims 11, 13-17, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wagner, Guillemin, and Yoshiaki (JPH0752834, pub. Feb. 28, 1995). 2 Appeal2017-007475 Application 14/013,367 ANALYSIS Anticipation rejection based on Wang As set forth above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2, 3, 12, and 23, as anticipated by Wang. The Examiner sets forth two different bases for rejecting the claims. See, e.g., Answer 2--4. In each basis, the Examiner relies on Wang's guide vanes 237 (see, e.g., id.) to teach the claim recitation of "a flow guide vane comprising an airfoil disposed within the battery inlet housing adjacent to the first inlet and positioned to redirect a first flow from the first duct to mix with a second flow from the second duct" (Appeal Br., Claims App.). Appellants argue that the anticipation rejection is in error because, in Wang, guide vane 237 within [a first duct] is not positioned to redirect flow from [the first duct] to mix with flow from [a second duct]. The outlet of [the first duct] defines whether flow therefrom will mix with flow from [the second duct]: Something upstream of the outlet of [the first duct] (and within [the first duct]) cannot perform the claimed function. Appeal Br. 3. Based on our review, for the following reasons, we determine that the Examiner does not support adequately the finding that Wang's guide vane 237 is positioned to redirect a first flow from the first duct to mix with a second flow from the second duct, as claimed. In the Final Office Action and Answer, the Examiner relies on Wang's Figure 4 to support the finding. See Final Action 2--4; see Answer 2--4. It is not clear to us, however, based on our review of Wang's figure or the Examiner's explanation (see, e.g., Answer 14), that Wang's guide vanes 23 7 are positioned to redirect a first flow from a first duct to 3 Appeal2017-007475 Application 14/013,367 mix with a second flow from a second duct. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1-3, 12, and 23. Obviousness rejection based on Wang Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on an obvious variation of Wang, for example, to remedy the above-discussed deficiency in claim 1 's rejection. See Final Act. 6; see Answer 5---6. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 5 based on Wang. Obviousness rejection based on Wagner and Guillemin As set forth above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-9, 12, and 23, as obvious based on Wagner and Guillemin. In the rejection, the Examiner proposes to use Guillemin' s deflector vanes 24 within Wagner's housing assembly 14. Answer 7. More specifically, according to the Examiner, Wagner notes that the configuration in the embodiment of Fig. 1 has uneven airflow, as indicated by the arrows (which indicate less cooling at the central cells). Wagner further expresses a desire for establishing even air flow for uniform cooling of battery cells (for example, see [0010]). Guillemin teaches a flow guide vane (24) compnsmg an airfoil (24) within an inlet housing. See Fig. 1. Guillemin further discusses that flow guide vanes such as 24 are known to be used for even distribution of air flow (see column 4, lines 42-50) .... [I]t would [have] be[ en] obvious ... to provide flow guide vanes, as suggested by Guillemin, to the battery inlet housing [of] Wagner; the motivation being: for even, homogeneous air flow distribution, which provides uniform cooling, improves battery performance, and reduces cooling fan power requirements. Answer 7 (paragraph numbering omitted). Appellants argue that the rejection is in error for the following reason: 4 Appeal2017-007475 Application 14/013,367 The uneven airflow between Wagner's battery cells, however, springs from noticeable pressure differences within Wagner's inlet plenum due to limits on inlet plenum volume. Wagner, [0010]. Placing Guillemin's deflector vanes 24 within Wagner's inlet plenum would not address the underlying pressure differences that create Wagner's problem: The deflector vanes 24 may indeed direct air, but they would not alter the pressure gradient within the inlet plenum so as to rectify the cause of the issue with uneven airflow between battery cells. (Directing air towards some battery cells would necessarily mean directing air away from other downstream battery cells, thus exacerbating the uneven airflow between battery cells problem.) As such, one of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Guillemin with Wagner. Appeal Br. 5. Based on our review, for the below reasons, we do not sustain the rejection. As set forth above, the Examiner relies on Wagner's paragraph 10 to disclose a reason for using Guillemin's deflector vanes 24 in Wagner's housing assembly 14. We reproduce Wagner's paragraph 10 below. Uniform cooling of cells within an automotive battery system may improve battery performance and reduce cooling fan power requirements. As the number of cells in an array increases, however, providing uniform air flow throughout the stack becomes increasingly difficult. This may be especially true when vehicle packaging requirements limit inlet plenum volume, which can promote noticeable pressure differences therein. Such pressure differences in, for example, a conventional twenty eight cell array may result in significant variations in air velocities around cells at different locations in the stack. Reduced air flow around some cells may result in lower current densities, degraded performance, etc. Wagner i-f 10. Based on our reading of the portion of Wagner the Examiner cites, the Examiner does not support adequately the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have used Guillemin's deflector vanes 24 in Wagner's 5 Appeal2017-007475 Application 14/013,367 housing. Thus, the Examiner does not provide an adequate basis for using Guillemin' s vanes in Wagner's arrangement. As stated by Wagner's paragraph 10, and as pointed out by Appellants, "[t]he uneven airflow between Wagner's battery cells ... [is] due to limits on inlet plenum volume." Appeal Br. 5. We note that Wagner solves the problem related to uneven air flow (in the embodiment shown in Figure 1) by using "blower 24 ... to pull air through ... assembly 1 O," and by increasing a "speed of ... blower 24 ... to account for the reduced cooling experienced by ... cells 12 located near the center of ... assembly 10," presumably such that excess air is provided to cells at the edges while an at least sufficient volume of air is provided to all cells, including the cells in the middle. Wagner i-fi-f 11, 13 (emphases omitted). Restated, Wagner solves the problem of uneven air flow caused by an undersized air inlet through the use of a blower to provide an increased volume of air. Inasmuch as Wagner already uses a blower to ensure that all of the cells are adequately cooled, there is no reason to use Guillemin's deflector vanes with Wagner's housing assembly. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-9, 12, and 23. Obviousness rejections based on Wagner, Guillemin, Park, and Yoshiaki With respect to claims 10 and 11, these claims depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on Park or Yoshiaki to remedy the above- discussed deficiency in claim 1 's rejection. See Final Act. 10-11; see Answer 9-10. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 10 and 11. 6 Appeal2017-007475 Application 14/013,367 With respect to independent claim 13, the claim includes a recitation similar to that addressed with respect to claim 1-i.e., "a battery housing having an inlet plenum portion, the battery housing further having first and second housing inlets arranged in the inlet plenum portion and a flow guide vane positioned within the inlet plenum portion proximate the first housing inlet." Appeal Br., Claims App. We determine that the Examiner errs in proposing to use Guillemin's deflector vanes 24 in Wagner's housing assembly 14 in claim 13's rejection (see, e.g., Answer 10-11) for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. With respect to claims 14--17, 21, and 22, these claims depend from claim 13. The Examiner does not rely on Yoshiaki to remedy the above- discussed deficiency in claim 13's rejection. See Final Act. 12-13; see Answer 12. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 14-- 1 7, 21, and 22. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1-17 and 21-23. REVERSED 7