Asif Iqbal et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 16, 2019

14602582 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2019)

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.
14/602,582 01/22/2015 Asif Iqbal 83490225;
67186-147 PUS1
1572
46442 7590 08/16/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
MCDERMOTT, HELEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2019 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, ADI PESHKESS,
and JAMES LAWRENCE SWOISH
____________________

Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

REN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection2 of
claims 1–5, 7, 9–11, 13, 14, and 16–24. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a battery pack venting assembly and
method and more specifically “venting battery cells within a battery pack of
an electrified vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 1.3 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. An assembly, comprising:
a plurality of vent chambers each associated with a battery
array; and
a vent conduit provided by a channel having a floor and
walls extending from the floor to a cover, the vent conduit
disposed on the plurality of vent chambers to receive vented fluid
from the plurality of vent chambers that is communicated
through a plurality of openings within the floor.
Claims Appendix (Br. 15).

1 The real party in interest is identified as “Ford Global Technologies, LLC.”
Appeal Brief of April 18, 2018 (“Br.”), 1.
2 Final Office Action of December 7, 2017 (“Final Act.”). In this opinion,
we also refer to the Examiner’s Answer of September 7, 2018 (“Ans.”) and
the Reply Brief of September 25, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Application No. 14/602,582 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

3
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Balk
Utley
Nemoto
Motokawa
US 2012/0247107 A1
US 2013/0143083 A1
US 2014/0093756 A1
US 2016/0211497 A1
Oct. 4, 2012
June 6, 2013
Apr. 3, 2014
July 21, 2016

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as
being indefinite. Final Act. 3.4
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nemoto. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–24
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motokawa in view of
Nemoto. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Nemoto in view of Utley, or alternatively over Motokawa
in view of Nemoto, and further in view of Utley. Final Act. 9.
The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Motokawa in view of Nemoto, and further in view of
Balk. Final Act. 10.

4 The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 21 “under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35
U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite.” Final Act. 3.
We, however, note that the earliest priority date is January 22, 2015
postdating the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011.
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After having
considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’
contentions, we are not persuaded that reversible error has been identified
(with the sole exception of the anticipation rejection of claim 2), and we
affirm the Examiner’s decision for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Indefiniteness Rejection of Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from independent claim 11. Claim 11 includes
limitations similar to those in claim 1, but differs in that claim 11 requires
that the vent conduit is “biased toward,” rather than “disposed on” the
plurality of vent chambers as recited in claim 1. Claim 13 additionally
recites “wherein the vent conduit is disposed on top of the vent chambers,
and the vent conduit is spaced from the vent chambers in a direction
corresponding to the general direction of flow through the plurality of
openings such that no portion of the vent conduit overlaps with any portion
of the vent chamber in the direction.” Claims Appendix (Br. 16) (emphasis
added).
The Examiner rejects claim 13 for failing to comply with the
definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

5
Examiner finds that it is unclear which one of the “plurality of vent
chambers” is the recited “vent chamber,” Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding and only provide
that Appellants “can amend claim 13 to recite ‘vent chambers’ rather than
‘vent chamber.’” Br. 12. We therefore affirm the indefiniteness rejection of
claim 13 for no reversible error has been identified. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”).
Indefiniteness Rejection of Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from independent claim 1 and additionally recites
“wherein the vent conduit is spaced from the vent chambers in a direction
corresponding to the general direction of flow through the plurality of
openings such that no portion of the vent conduit overlaps with any portion
of the vent chamber in the direction, the flow moving through the plurality
of openings directly from the vent chambers to the vent conduit.” Claims
Appendix (Br. 17).
The Examiner rejects claim 21 for failing to comply with the
definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112 finding that the limitation “the
flow moving through the plurality of openings directly from the vent
chambers to the vent conduit” is contradictory to the limitation that “the vent
conduit is spaced from the vent chambers.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. That is, the
Examiner finds that the limitation that “the vent conduit is spaced from the
vent chambers” necessitates the flow passing indirectly from the vent
chambers to the vent conduit. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

6
Appellants argue that the Specification shows that “vent conduit 84 is
disposed atop the array vent chambers 80” and therefore “the vent conduit
84 is spaced from (i.e., not overlapping with) the vent [chambers 80] in a
direction of flow through the openings 108 and 112.” Br. 13 (citing Spec. ¶¶
52, 57). The Examiner, on the other hand, states the ordinary meaning of
“spaced from” is not “overlapping with” as Appellants argue. Ans. 22. The
Examiner further notes that, as a result, “the claim requires some form of
gap between the vent chambers and the vent conduit, such that they are not
in direct contact with each other, in order for them to reasonably be
considered to be spaced from each other” rendering the recited “flow
moving . . . directly from the vent chambers to the vent conduit” inconsistent
and unclear. Id. Appellants do not provide persuasive argument that the
Examiner’s interpretation and determination that the language of claim 21 is
inconsistent and thus unclear is unreasonable. The Examiner’s determination
is reasonably supported by the Specification. Compare Reply Br. 1–5, with
Ans. 22. We accordingly affirm the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
claim 21.
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 15
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nemoto discloses an
assembled battery having opening portions 12c anticipating the “plurality of
vent chambers each associated with a battery array” recited in claim 1. Final
Act. 4 (citing Nemoto Fig. 3 and accompanying texts).

5 Appellants do not present separate arguments for the anticipation rejection
of claims 9 and 21, and claims 9 and 21 therefore stand or fall with claim 1
for the anticipation rejection. See Br. 6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

7
Appellants do not dispute Nemoto’s disclosure but argue that the prior
art opening portions 12c “are not chambers for venting.” Br. 3. Appellants
reason that opening portions 12c “are filled by gaskets 17” which include
gas-passing holes 17a and therefore the prior art “gas moves through the
gas-passing holes 17, not through the entire opening portion 12c” – “[a]t
least these areas are not open or able to vent gas.” Id. According to
Appellants, “[t]he opening portion 12c cannot be a vent chamber because
gas does not move through the entire opening portion.” Reply Br. 1.
From the outset, we decline to import a limitation into the recited
“vent chamber” requiring that the gas must “move through the entire
opening portion” as Appellants argue. See Reply Br. 1. Appellants do not
offer their own interpretation of the claim term “vent chamber,” nor do
Appellants explain why the broadest reasonable interpretation of “vent
chamber” excludes the prior art opening through which venting may occur.
See Br. 3 (“Areas of the opening portions 12c are filled by the gaskets 17. At
least these areas are not open or able to vent gas. Thus, the opening portions
12c cannot be considered to teach the “vent chamber” as is claimed.”); see
also Reply Br. 1–2 (“The Examiner’s unreasonably broad interpretation of
‘vent chamber’ effectively takes the position that any device housing a gas
passage is a vent chamber. This is not the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the claimed ‘vent chamber.’”). The Specification does not provide an
explicit definition of “vent chamber” (see Spec. ¶¶ 50–53 (cited by
Appellants as written description support of the term)) and in any event,
Appellants do not refer to the Specification or other evidence to show that
the recited “vent chamber” is limited to a particular structure having specific
components. See Br. 3–4; see also Reply Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

8
As the Examiner points out, the presence of gasket 17 “does not
negate that the opening portion 12c is itself a chamber.” Ans. 11. Consistent
with Appellants’ acknowledgement that “[a]reas of the opening portions 12c
are filled by the gaskets 17” (Br. 3), the Examiner finds that “the gas-passing
holes 17a of gaskets 17, through which the gas is vented, are disposed inside
of the opening portions 12c.” Ans. 11. In the Reply Brief, however,
Appellants contradict their prior statement and assert that Nemoto’s Figure 3
does not clearly show that gaskets 17 are positioned within opening portions
12c. Reply Br. 3. Such self-contradictory statements are not persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s fact findings.
Moreover, “the patentability of apparatus or composition claims
depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that
structure.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801,
809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Appellants’ argument does not structurally distinguish
the recited “vent chamber” from the prior art and therefore does not show
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of structural identity.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that the prior art teaches “vent chambers each associated with a battery
array” because battery cell 3 is a single battery cell instead of a “battery
array” as recited in claim 1. Br. 4. The Examiner, however, finds that the
prior art shows each battery cell 3 is part of a battery array and thus each
vent chamber 12c is “associated with a battery array.” Ans. 11. Appellants
do not present persuasive arguments against the Examiner’s findings.
Compare Reply 1–4, with Ans. 11. No reversible error has therefore been
identified here. The anticipation rejection of claim 1 is sustained as a result.
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 2
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

9
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites: “wherein the
vent conduit extends longitudinally along a vent conduit axis, and the vent
chambers extend longitudinally along respective vent chamber axes that are
transverse to the vent conduit axis.” Claims Appendix (Br. 15).
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred here because
Figure 3 of Nemoto is “a non-scaled, exploded, perspective view of a
battery” which does not show the recited configurations, i.e., the
longitudinal axes. Br. 5. The Examiner, on the other hand, states that “the
claims also do not require any particular dimensions, and regardless of
specific measurements, Fig. 3 of Nemoto clearly indicates that the opening
portions 12c have a major extension direction along a length in the vertical
direction.” Ans. 12.
“Anticipation requires that all of the claim elements and their
limitations are shown in a single prior art reference.” In re Skvorecz, 580
F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009). While the Examiner is correct that claim 2
does not require any particular dimension, it does, however, require that the
“chambers extend longitudinally along respective vent chamber axes that are
transverse to the vent conduit axis.” Because the record before us does not
clearly provide a fact finding in support of this claim limitation, we reverse
the anticipation rejection of claim 2.
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites: “wherein the
openings are downwardly facing openings of the vent conduit that
correspond to upwardly facing openings of the plurality of vent chambers.”
Claims Appendix (Br. 15).
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

10
Appellants argue that Nemoto does not disclose the recited “upwardly
facing openings of the plurality of vent chambers” because gas-passing holes
17a “are holes in a gasket 17” and not openings of 12c. Br. 5. Appellants,
however, do not rebut the Examiner’s finding that “gaskets 17 may also be
considered to be a part of the plurality of vent chambers, in combination
with the opening portions 12c” or that “the opening portions 12c themselves
also have upwardly facing openings.” Compare Reply Br. 1–4, with Ans.
12–13. We accordingly sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 4.
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 as well as claim 4 and additionally
recites: “a sealant between a perimeter of the downwardly facing openings
and a perimeter of the upwardly facing openings.” Claims Appendix (Br.
15).
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that the
prior art cover 16 discloses the recited sealant because a “sealant is a
material used for sealing.” Br. 5. The Specification provides that a sealant
“blocks fluid from moving through the interfacing areas.” Spec. ¶ 56.
Appellants do not argue that the prior art cover 16 does not block or seal the
relevant component – Appellants in fact acknowledge that the “cover 16 is
‘tightly contacted’ with” the respective components. Br. 5. No reversible
error has been shown in the Examiner’s fact finding here and the
anticipation rejection of claim 5 is sustained.
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites: “wherein the
channel is secured to a downwardly facing surface of the cover.” Claims
Appendix (Br. 15).
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

11
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred because the claim
term “secured to” structurally distinguishes the prior art apparatus. Reply Br.
3. However, other than stating that Nemoto does not show the respective
components being “secured to” each other (as opposed to attached to each
other as the Examiner finds), Appellants do not specify what the structural
distinction is. See id. The anticipation rejection of claim 7 is therefore
sustained.
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites: “further
comprising the battery array, wherein the vent chambers each comprise a
first sidewall and an opposing, second sidewall extending away from the
battery array to a cover surface spanning from the first to the second
sidewall, the plurality of openings within the floor of the vent conduit
corresponding to a plurality of openings within the cover surfaces that are
spaced a distance from both the first and second sidewalls of the vent
chambers.” Claims Appendix (Br. 17).
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred because the prior
art sidewalls of opening portions 12c do not extend from a battery array to a
cover surface (gaskets 17) but “gaskets 17 are instead positioned between
the alleged sidewalls and the frame [12].” Br. 6. While not explicitly stated,
Appellants appears to argue that claim 22 is structurally distinguishable from
the prior art structure because the prior art sidewall is separated from the
battery array by the gasket 17. Based on the plain language of claim 22, we
decline to restrict the open-ended claim 22 language reciting “[a] sidewall
extending away from the battery array to a cover surface” to exclude a
component such as prior art gasket 17.
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

12
Appellants also argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that gasket 17 discloses the recited “cover surface.” Br. 6. Appellants
acknowledge that “gasket 17 has an outermost surface” and do not
adequately explain why such an outer surface does not disclose the recited
cover surface. Id.; compare Ans. 15 (finding that gasket 17 discloses the
recited “cover surface” based on the fact finding that gasket 17 “covers a
part of the opening portion 12c and/or the battery cell 3”), with Reply Br. 3–
4 (failing to dispute the Examiner’s fact findings in support of the
anticipation rejection of claim 22). The anticipation rejection of claim 22 is
therefore sustained.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1 over Motokawa and Nemoto, the Examiner finds
that Motokawa discloses a battery unit with various components but “does
not disclose that the channel has a floor including a plurality of openings and
walls extending from the floor to the cover.” Final Act. 8. The Examiner
therefore turns to Nemoto for the teaching. Id. The Examiner reasons that
based on Nemoto’s teaching of improved safety by using the metal and resin
channels, a skilled artisan would have arrived at claim 1 based on the
combined prior art teachings. Id (citing various portions of Nemoto as
support); Ans. 15.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reasoning is not supported by
the record but do not address the Examiner’s factual findings in support of
the rejection. Compare Br. 7–8 (arguing without addressing the Examiner’s
fact findings), with Final Act. 8 (citing Nemoto ¶¶ 35, 38, 39, 42, 45, Fig. 3,
among other portions, in support of the rejection as well as the rationale to
combine). Disagreeing with the Examiner’s rationale that a skilled artisan
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

13
would have combined the prior art teachings for improved safety “by
preventing the metal channel from causing a short circuit while protecting
the resin cover from hot exhaust gas” (Final Act. 8), Appellants assert that
“adding metal walls and a floor would introduce more metal and would
make short circuiting more likely” (Br. 7) without evidentiary support that
would directly contradict the Examiner’s finding that the resin cover over a
channel provided by walls and floor “would allow an insulating surface to be
interposed between the metal fixation member 24 of Motokawa and the
battery cells” and “decrease the likelihood of causing a short.” Ans. 16.
“Attorneys’ argument is no substitute for evidence.” Johnston v. IVAC
Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). No reversible error has
therefore been identified here.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 2
Appellants’ sole argument for the obviousness rejection of claim 2 is
that “the claim depends from claim 1 and is patentable for this reason.” Br.
8. We sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 2 for the reasons provided
supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites: “wherein the
plurality of vent chambers are biased toward the battery arrays, and the vent
conduit is separately biased toward the vent chambers.” Claims Appendix
(Br. 15).
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred because the prior
art vent chambers “could be fastened in many ways without biasing [the vent
chambers] toward the battery arrays.” Br. 8. Appellants, however, do not
explain why the Examiner’s finding is in error that the prior art “fastening
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

14
means such as bolts, screws or rivets” teaches or suggests the “biased
toward” limitation. Compare Br. 8, with Final Act. 7. Appellants also do not
rebut the Examiner’s finding that the prior art “fastening means such as
bolts, screws or rivets, for example, appears to be equivalent to the biasing
of the instant application by mechanical fasteners (see e.g., paragraphs
[0048] and [0059] of applicant’s specification as filed).” Compare Ans. 17,
with Reply Br. 4. We accordingly sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
3.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 4
Appellants argue that there lacks a rational basis to support the
obviousness rejection of claim 4 but do not address the Examiner reasoning.
For example, the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that
the openings and their positions are part of the channel floor of
Nemoto, and therefore the motivation to include the channel
floor as a whole would naturally also motivate one or ordinary
skill in the art to include the same arrangement of openings 13c
within the channel floor, which in Nemoto, are aligned with the
upwardly facing openings 17a of the vent chambers, because
there would be no reason to change such arrangement when
making the combination.

Compare Ans. 17, with Reply Br. 4. Given that the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection is supported by factual evidence and Appellants do
not present persuasive arguments supported by evidence to the contrary, we
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 4.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 5
Appellants’ sole argument for the obviousness rejection of claim 5 is
that “the claim depends from claim 1 and is patentable for this reason.” Br.
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

15
9. We sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 5 for the reasons provided
supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 7
Appellants’ sole argument for the obviousness rejection of claim 7 is
that the limitation of “the channel is secured to a downwardly facing surface
of the cover” is not taught or suggested by Motokawa. Br. 8; Reply 4.
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s fact findings that Nemoto’s
exhaust duct 13a-j (which undisputedly teaches or suggests the recited
channel) is secured to cover 13k which teaches or suggests the recited
limitation. Compare Ans. 18, with Reply 4. We sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 7 for the reasons provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 9
Appellants argue that there lacks a rational basis to support the
obviousness rejection of claim 9 but do not address the Examiner reasoning.
Compare Br. 9, with Final Act 8; compare Reply Br. 4, with Ans. 18. We
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 9 for the reasons provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 11
Appellants repeat their argument for the obviousness rejection of
claim 3 with regard to the obviousness rejection of claim 11. Compare Br. 8,
with Br. 9. We accordingly sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 11 for
the reasons provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 13
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred without disputing
the Examiner’s fact findings in support of the obviousness rejection of claim
13. Compare Final Act. 9, with Br. 9; compare Ans. 19, with Reply Br. 4.
We particularly note that Appellants’ argument is solely based on Motokawa
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

16
and does not address the Examiner’s fact findings with regard to Nemoto.
See Br. 9. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). We accordingly sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 13
which is based on the combined prior art teaching.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 14
Appellants’ sole argument for the obviousness rejection of claim 14 is
that “the claim is patentable for the reasons mentioned above in response to
the rejection of claim 4.” Br. 10. We sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 14 for the reasons provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 16
Appellants argue that claim 16 “is patentable for the reasons
mentioned above in response to the rejection of claim 1.” Br. 10. Appellants
also argue that claim 16 is patentable for the reasons provided with regard to
claims 3 and 11. Id.
We sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 16 for the reasons
provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 17
Claim 17 is similar to claim 3 reciting “biasing the vent chamber
against the battery cell.” Claims Appendix (Br. 16). Appellants repeat their
argument with regard to claim 3 here. We sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 17 for the reasons provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 19 & 20
Appellants’ sole argument for the obviousness rejection of claims 19
and 20 is that the claims “depend from claim 16 and are patentable for this
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

17
reason.” Br. 10. We sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 19 and 20
for the reasons provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 21
Appellants’ sole argument for the obviousness rejection of claim 21 is
that the “claim is patentable for the reasons mentioned above in response to
the rejection of claim 13.” Br. 11. We sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 5 for the reasons provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 22
The dispositive issue with regard to the obviousness rejection of claim
22 is whether the tops of ribs 9a in Motokawa teach or suggest “a cover
surface.” Compare Ans. 20–21 (providing an annotated drawing in addition
to the various fact findings in support of the rejection), with Reply Br. 4.
Appellants argue that the “tops of the ribs 9a are not covering anything” but
do not structurally distinguish the prior art. Reply Br. 4. We are therefore not
persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that the tops of ribs
9a teach or suggest the recited “cover surface” and the obviousness rejection
of claim 22 is sustained.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 23
Appellants’ sole argument for the obviousness rejection of claim 23 is
that “the claim depends from claim 1 and is patentable for this reason.” Br.
11. We sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 23 for the reasons
provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 24
Appellants’ sole argument for the obviousness rejection of claim 24 is
that “the claim depends from claim 1 and is patentable for this reason.” Br.
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

18
11–12. We sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 24 for the reasons
provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 10
Appellants’ sole argument for the obviousness rejection of claim 10 is
that “the claim depends from claim 1 and is patentable for this reason.” Br.
12. We sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 10 for the reasons
provided supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 18
Claim 18 indirectly depends from claim 16 and recites: “further
comprising biasing the vent conduit, the vent chamber, and the battery cell
toward a cold plate.” Claims Appendix (Br. 16).
The Examiner finds that “Balk teaches a battery module including a
cold plate mounted on a bottom surface to cool the cells within the battery
module [0021], wherein the cells are urged downwardly such that they make
better thermal contact with the cold plate [0024].” Final Act. 10. The
Examiner finds that a skilled artisan would have combined Balk with
Motokawa and Nemoto “with the reasonable expectation of facilitating
effective cooling of the cells.” Id.
Appellants acknowledge that “biasing the battery cell toward a cold
plate may facilitate effective cooling of the battery cell” but argue that the
Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 18 because the modification
further “requires modifying Motokawa as modified by Nemoto to further
bias the alleged vent conduit and vent chamber toward the cold plate.” Br.
12.
The Examiner states that the claim limitation “biasing . . . toward”
“merely indicates a direction of the biasing” and “does not necessarily
Appeal 2019-000078
Application 14/602,582

19
require any direct connection thereto.” Ans. 21. Appellants do not respond to
the Examiner’s interpretation. See generally Reply Br. Based on the finding
that “Motokawa teaches biasing the vent conduit and the vent chambers
toward the cells, i.e., downwardly, as explained above in regard to claims 3,
and 11” and that Balk teaches “disposing the cold plate on the bottom
surface of the cells,” the Examiner concludes that a skilled artisan would
have arrived at claim 18 as a result of combining the prior art structures. Id.
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner fact findings or rationale for
combining and we therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.6

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

6 As we specified herein, the anticipation rejection of claim 2 is reversed but
the obviousness rejection of claim 2 is sustained.