Ex Parte Barrett Jr

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2007

10311659 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES H. BARRETT, JR.
____________

Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: September 6, 2007
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 28-36, the only
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to vent cap for a battery cell cover which
prevents entry of contaminants while minimizing loss of electrolyte.
Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659

Specification 2, l. 26-p. 3, l. 2. Claim 28 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
28. A battery cell cover and cap assembly comprising:

a battery cell cover having at least one aperture formed therein;

a cap for aperture of said cover; and

a hinge for pivotally interconnecting said cap directly to said cell
cover for selectively covering and uncovering the aperture of said cover.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Krabatsch DE 33 30 823 A1 Mar. 1, 1984
Shestok US 4,778,735 Oct. 18, 1988
Francisco US 5,278,003 Jan. 11, 1994
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Francisco.
2. Claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Francisco.
3. Claims 28 and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Krabatsch.
4. Claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Krabatsch in view of Shestok.

I. REJECTIONS BASED ON FRANCISCO – Claims 28-30
Issue
Appellant asserts that Francisco’s cap is not connected to the battery
cell cover (the primary cover), but is mounted in a secondary cover. Br. 10.
2
Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659

Appellant thus contends that Francisco fails to disclose or suggest the claim
limitation of a battery cell cover and cap assembly wherein the cap is
hingedly connected directly to the battery cell cover. Br. 10. The Examiner
contends that the combination of Francisco’s primary and secondary covers
is properly characterized as the claimed “battery cell cover” because they are
securely engaged with each other and cover the battery container. Answer
6-7. Thus, the issue for us to determine is whether the claim language
“battery cell cover” reads on the combination of Francisco’s primary and
secondary covers.

Relevant Findings of Fact
1) Francisco discloses a cover assembly for maintenance-free lead-
acid batteries.
2) The cover assembly comprises “a primary cover generally
designated 50 having an upper flat portion or raised platform 1 with rims
or tabs 2 for securing a secondary cover 60.” Col. 2, ll. 54-57.
3) A gas condensation chamber base 85 is located on the primary
cover 50. Col. 3, ll. 9-11. The gas condensation chamber base 85
receives and secures the gas condensation chamber housing 80. Col. 3,
ll. 14-16.
4) Six circular chambers 23 are arranged in series across the gas
condensation chamber base 85. Col. 3, ll. 23-24. The chambers 23 are
positioned over respective cells of the battery. Col. 3, ll. 28-29. Each
chamber 23 is covered by a removable plug 26. Col. 3, l. 32.
5) The secondary cover 60 includes stops 60b which engage the rims
or tabs 2 of the primary cover 50. Col. 3, ll. 52-54. The lower edge of
3
Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659

the secondary cover 60 engages a recess or groove 16 in the top surface
of the primary cover 50. Col. 3, ll. 57-59. The secondary cover 60 is
also locked to the housing 80. Col. 3, ll. 49-52. “Because of the unique
securing arrangement of the secondary cover 60 to the primary cover 50
and the gas condensation chamber housing 80, the removal of the
secondary cover 60 is not possible without causing damage to either the
rims 2, 14 or the secondary cover 60.” Col. 4, ll. 12-17.
6) Secondary cover 60 includes a lid 22 which pivots on a crease
hinge 31. Col. 3, ll. 62-65. “Lid 22 permits access to the six plugs 26 in
the chamber housing 80, to check the electrolyte level in each battery
cell.” Col. 4, ll. 6-8. Lid 22 may be reclosed and held in a closed
position. Col. 4, ll. 1-2.
Analysis and Conclusions
During prosecution claims are given their broadest reasonable
construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The claims, as drafted,
broadly recite “a battery cell cover.” We are in agreement with the
Examiner that the plain meaning of the claim language reads on a cover
having a single, as well as a multi-piece construction. Moreover, as noted
by the Examiner, Francisco’s primary and secondary covers are securely
engaged so as to form a single cover structure. Finding of Fact 5. Appellant
has not explained why a narrower claim construction is warranted. Nor do
we find any basis in the Specification for limiting the battery cell cover to a
single piece construction. Thus, we are in agreement with the Examiner that
claim 28 reads on Francisco’s battery cover assembly.
4
Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659

Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Francisco. Because Appellant has not presented
any additional substantive arguments with respect to claims 29 and 30 (Br.
11), we also affirm the rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Francisco for the reasons stated in the Examiner’s
Answer.
II. REJECTIONS BASED ON KRABATSCH – Claims 28 & 31-36
Issue
Appellant asserts that Krabatsch’s cap is connected to an insert sleeve,
and is not connected to the battery cell cover. Br. 11. Appellant thus
contends that Krabatsch fails to disclose or suggest the claim limitation of a
battery cell cover and cap assembly wherein the cap is hingedly connected
directly to the battery cell cover. Br. 1. The Examiner contends that the
combination of Krabatsch’s insertion part and cell cover is properly
characterized as the claimed battery cell cover because the insertion part is
integrated with the cell cover. Answer 7. Thus, the issue for us to determine
is whether the claim language “battery cell cover” reads on Krabatch’s two-
part structure (i.e., insert and cover).
Relevant Findings Of Fact
7) Krabatsch discloses a plug for a lead acid battery cell having an
integral hinged cap and concentric tubular parts.
8) Figure 1 of Krabatsch is shown below:
5
Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659

Krabatsch Figure 1 shows a battery cell cover 1 having an insert 21
extending through the cover 1 and locked thereto. Abstract. Insert 21
includes a filler tube 23 for filling the battery cell. Abstract. A
hinged cap 11 covers filler tube 23. Cap 11 is integrally connected to
the insert 21 and locked in place by a snap action with the top of the
insert. Abstract.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
As noted above, we interpret the language “a battery cell cover” as
reading on a cover having a single, as well as a multi-piece construction.
Thus, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the claimed cover reads
on Krabatsch’s combined cover 1 and insert 21. In addition, as noted by the
Examiner, the insert 21is locked to the cell cover 1 so as to form a single
cover structure. Finding of Fact 7.
6
Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659

Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 28 and 31-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Krabatsch. Because Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to claims 35
and 36 (Br. 12), we also affirm the rejection of claims 35 and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Francisco in view of Shestok for the
reasons stated in the Examiner’s Answer.

ORDER
The rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Francisco is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Francisco is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 28 and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Krabatsch is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Krabatsch in view of Shestok is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(i)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam

7
Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659

FRASER, CLEMENS, MARTIN & MILLER, LLC
28366 KENSINGTON LANE
PERRYSBURG, OH 43551

8