Claus Gerald. PfluegerDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 25, 201914411000 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/411,000 12/23/2014 Claus Gerald Pflueger 2178-1303 3247 10800 7590 10/25/2019 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1722 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/25/2019 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 ____________________ Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated Oct. 10, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Mar. 9, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated June 20, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Aug. 23, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 2 The invention relates to mechanically-connected battery cells. Spec. 1, ll. 5–6. Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief and illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A battery, comprising: two battery cells each having a battery cell housing, the two battery cells electrically wired to each other, wherein the battery cell housing of each of the two battery cells has a planar surface incorporating an integral connecting structure, the connecting structure of one of the two battery cell housings configured to engage the connecting structure of the other of the two battery housings in a force- fitting and an interlocking manner to mechanically connect the two battery cells to each other, and wherein the connecting structure is provided as a single component limited to a center position on the planar surface of the housing, the single component defining a force-fitting and interlocking structure. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Gillespie US 4,339,049 July 13, 1982 Kim US 2006/0220615 A1 Oct. 5, 2006 Schröder et al. (“Schröder”) US 2013/0207459 A1 Aug. 15, 2013 Jones et al. (“Jones”) EP 0 065 349 A1 Nov. 24, 1982 Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 3 REJECTION The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):3 A. Claims 1–9, 11, 13, and 14 as obvious over Gillespie in view of Kim; B. Claim 10 as obvious over Gillespie in view of Kim, and further in view of Schröder; and C. Claim 12 as obvious over Gillespie in view of Kim, and further in view of Jones. Final Act. 3–9. OPINION Rejection of claims 1–9, 11, 13, and 14 as obvious over Gillespie in view of Kim Appellant argues for patentability of the two independent claims (claims 1 and 9) together, and separately argues for patentability of claim 2 and claim 3. Appeal Br. 6–11. We select claim 1 as representative of the claims in all rejections, other than claims 2 and 3. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We address claims 2 and 3 separately infra. Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Gillespie teaches all elements of claim 1 except for electrically connecting two battery cells together, for which the Examiner turns to Kim. Final Act. 3–4; Appeal Br. 6. Appellant’s arguments are directed to whether the Examiner is correct in finding that 3 Because this application claims priority to an application filed before the March 16, 2013, effective date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute. Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 4 Gillespie discloses force fitting of the connecting structure of two battery cells housings. Appeal Br. 6–9. The Examiner finds that the battery containers shown in Gillespie Figs. 5 and 6 are analogous to the claimed battery cell housing, and include a planar surface (502 or 602), as claimed. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Gillespie discloses features (501) and its opposing oblong depression, and (601/603), shown in Figs. 5 and 6, that are the integral connecting structure of claim 1 and engage each other in a force fitting and interlocking manner. Id. at 3–4. Gillespie Figs. 5 and 6 are reproduced below: Fig. 5 shows an embodiment of Gillespie’s invention in which container (500) has an oblong projection (501) extending outwardly from Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 5 side wall (502) to engage a corresponding oblong depression in an adjacent container. Gillespie 3:5–7, 3:36–40. Fig. 6 shows a continuous rib-like projection (601) that extends outwardly from side wall (602) to engage a corresponding rib-like projection (603) on an adjacent container. Gillespie 3:40–45. The Examiner finds that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of force fitting merely requires force fitting to be achieved in at least one direction.” Ans. 11. The Examiner further finds that any degree of force fitting would suffice to meet the claim limitation. Id. The Examiner finds that a connection that restrains lateral and rotational movement of a container must be force fitting, directing us specifically to Gillespie’s Fig. 6 showing features 601 and 603 as preventing lateral rotational movement. Id. The Examiner agrees with Appellant’s contention that force fitting is achieved by friction between two parts that are pushed together, and finds that the projections taught in Gillespie form friction by making physical contact with each other. Id. at 12–13. The Examiner finds that friction will be present inherently between the contact surfaces, including friction in the direction perpendicular to the side walls of the container because friction works in all directions. Id. at 13. More specifically, the Examiner finds that the ribs in Fig. 6 of Gillespie are in contact with each other, resulting in restriction of lateral and rotational movement; thus they have a friction fit. Id. The Examiner finds that Gillespie’s teaching that movement perpendicular to the side walls is “relatively unhindered” is referring to unhindered movement with respect to geometrical restraint, but does not relate to friction fit. Id. The Examiner finds that Gillespie teaches that battery cells are restrained in the perpendicular direction. Id. at 13–14 Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 6 (citing Gillespie 4:1–4, 5:55–67). Finally, the Examiner finds that claim 1 does not recite a limitation that force fitting of the integral connecting structure will prevent movement perpendicular to the surfaces of the housing; thus Appellant’s argument that a force fit would prevent perpendicular movement addresses unclaimed subject matter. Id. at 14. Appellant argues that Gillespie does not “describe the projections as being in a force fitting . . . manner to mechanically connect the two battery cells to each other,” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant identifies Gillespie’s disclosure of means to restrain longitudinal, lateral, and rotational movement, while allowing relatively unhindered movement perpendicular to the side walls as teaching away from force fitting. Id. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s construction of “force fitting” is inconsistent with the well-known meaning of the term and with the Specification. Id. Appellant argues that “[t]he classical definition is that a force-fit is also known as an interference fit, press fit and friction fit, and is achieved by friction after two parts are pushed together.” Id. at 7 (citing Wikipedia, which, in turn, cites Mark’s Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers (Fifth ed.), p. 495). Appellant contends that force fit requires prevention of movement in all directions and all degrees of freedom. Id. Appellant argues that a component can be restrained without being maintained in a friction fit, giving as an example a door jamb restraining a door from pivoting past the door frame but not having a friction fit, which would interfere with opening the door. Id. at 8. According to Appellant, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “force-fit” includes “friction fit in all degrees of freedom of the interface.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that Gillespie’s disclosure of movement of connections away from Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 7 each other perpendicular to the surfaces of the housings not only fails to disclose force-fitting, but instead teaches away from a force-fit interface. Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2. The question of the obviousness of the subject matter of a claim requires comparison of the properly construed claims to the available prior art. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]o properly compare [the prior art] with the claims at issue, we must construe the term [in dispute] to ascertain its scope and meaning.”). During prosecution, we give the language of the proposed claims “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054–55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The words used in a claim must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Specification does not contain a definition of “force-fit,” but repeatedly uses the term in conjunction with “friction”: (1) “force-fitting frictional connectional or an additional separate interlocking connection” (Spec. 2, ll. 21–23); (2) “Owing to the invention, the force-fitting/frictional connection is significantly intensified without additional space being Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 8 required and is integrated in a differently arranged interlocking connection” (Spec. 4, ll. 35–37); and (3) “One advantage of the present invention is that the force-fitting/frictional connection between the cells and the cell pressure connection are considerably improved given the same installation space. . . . A further advantage of the present invention is that the battery cells are connected to one another such that the battery cells cannot become detached in the assembled state.” (Spec. 5, ll. 14–24). We construe “force-fitting . . . manner” in claim 1 as “in a manner such that the mating of two opposing surfaces requires more than a minimal exertion of force creating friction between the surfaces and a tight fit.”4 This construction is entirely consistent with the use of the term in the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Spec. 2, ll. 20–23; 4, l. 28–5, l. 2; 5, ll. 14–17. 4 Force fit: (1) “press fit,” “assembly of two tightly fitting parts, as a hub on a shaft, made by a press or the like.” Dictionary.com (accessed Oct. 18, 2019), “(2) “A fitting [sic, in] which one part is force pressed into another to form a single unit.” Engineering Network Engineering Dictionary (accessed Oct. 18, 2019), https://www.engnetglobal.com/tips/glossary.aspx?word= force+fit; (3) “press fit,” “a tight fitting of structural parts made by a press.” Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (accessed Oct. 18, 2019), https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/apdst/force_fit/0; (4) “Force Fits: (FN): Force or shrink fits constitute a special type of interference fit” and “FN 4 and FN 5 Force fits are suitable for parts that can be highly stressed or for shrink fits where the heavy pressing forces required are impractical.” Engineersedge.com Standard Preferred Tolerance Limits Fits ANSI B4.1 (accessed Oct. 18, 2019), https://www.engineersedge.com/mechanical,045tolerances/preffered- mechanical-tolerances.htm. Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 9 Gillespie fails to teach the limitation in question, when properly interpreted, and the Examiner does not rely on Kim to cure the deficiency. See Appeal Br. 9. Therefore, Appellant shows reversible error by the Examiner in finding that the combination of Gillespie and Kim discloses “force-fitting.” We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Gillespie in view of Kim. For the reasons given for claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–9, 11, 13, and 14 over these same references in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 2 Appellant argues separately for patentability of claim 2. Because claim 2 depends from claim 1, which is not obvious over Gillespie in view of Kim, claim 2 is also not obvious over the references. We do not sustain the rejection. Claim 3 Appellant argues separately for patentability of claim 3. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites: wherein the connecting structure of one of the battery cell housings includes a lock element; the connecting structure of the other of the battery cell housings includes a key element; and the lock and key elements are configured to be engaged in an interlocking manner to mechanically connect the two battery cells to each other. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). With respect to claim 3’s recitation of “lock and key” elements, we note that the Specification describes an advantageous result of the lock and Appeal 2018-008802 Application 14/411,000 10 key principle is that the battery cells cannot become detached and a stable mechanical connection between the cells is ensured. Spec. 6, ll. 4–10. The Specification further describes Figure 3 as illustrating engagement of two opposite structure surfaces in line with the lock and key principle. Spec. 8, ll. 29–34. However, Figure 3 does not appear to illustrate two surfaces in a force-fitting manner as we have interpreted the term, or in a “lock and key configuration that would prevent perpendicular movement between adjacent battery cells.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Spec. Fig. 3. The Specification thus invites some confusion as to the meaning of the term “lock and key elements.” Given that claim 3 depends from claim 1 and there is no rejection of the claim as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as obvious over Gillespie in view of Kim. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–9, 11, 13, 14 103(a) Gillespie, Kim 1–9, 11, 13, 14 10 103(a) Gillespie, Kim, Schröder 10 12 103(a) Gillespie, Kim, Jones 12 Overall Outcome 1–14 REVERSED Notice of References Cited Application/Control No. 14/411,000 Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. 2018-008802 Examiner Art Unit 1722 Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document NumberCountry Code-Number-Kind Code DateMM-YYYY Name CPC Classification US Classification A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document NumberCountry Code-Number-Kind Code DateMM-YYYY Country Name CPC Classification N O P Q R S T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) U V W X *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 20170303 Force Fit. (1992). In C. G. Morris (Ed.), Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science & Technology. (accessed October 18, 2019), https://search.credoreference.com/ content/entry/apdst/force_fit/0?institutionId=743 Engineersedge.com Standard Preferred Tolerance Limits Fits ANSI B4.1 (accessed October 18, 2019), https:// www.engineersedge.com/mechanical,045tolerances/preffered-mechanical-tolerances.htm. Engineering Network Engineering Dictionary (accessed October 18, 2019), https:// www.engnetglobal.com/tips/glossary.aspx?word=force+fit Dictionary.com (accessed October 18, 2019), https://www.dictionary.com/browse/force-fit# Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation