Ex Parte Chaney

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 23, 2006

10645025 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte GEORGE T. CHANEY
_____________

Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025
______________

ON BRIEF
_______________

Before OWENS, NAPPI and FETTING, Administrative Patent
Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 25 through 27 and 29. For the
reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 25 through 27 and 29.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to an electric vehicle and method
of replacing the battery. The vehicle has a chassis, the
front and rear portion are formed with the vehicle body, a
section spanning the front and rear portion of the chassis

Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025

define the sides of a removable battery module. See pages
3, 4, figures 4, 6 and 7 of appellant’s specification.
Claim 27 is representative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
27. A method of replacing a battery module of an
electric powered vehicle, comprising:

providing electric powered vehicles, each electric
powered vehicle comprising:

a chassis defining a battery module compartment,
and

a battery module insertable into the battery
module compartment of the chassis, whereby the battery
module completes the chassis upon insertion in the
battery module compartment thereby providing the
chassis with required structural integrity necessary to
support the electric powered vehicle during travel;

providing a service facility with a plurality of
battery modules and a system for charging the battery
modules;

opening the service facility to drivers owning the
electric powered vehicles, whereby a driver having an
electric powered vehicle with a depleted battery module
enters the service facility;

removing the depleted battery from the electric
powered vehicle, thereby removing a portion of the
chassis for the electric powered vehicle;

inserting a fully charged battery module into the
electric powered vehicle, thereby completing the
chassis of the electric powered vehicle and providing
the chassis with required structural integrity
necessary to support the electric powered vehicle
during travel; and charging the driver for the fully
charged battery module.

2

Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025

THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner is:
Weaver 3,760,770 Sept. 25, 1973
Chase, Jr. (Chase) 5,760,569 Jun. 2, 1998
THE REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 25 through 27 and 29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver in view of
Chase. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3 and
4 of the answer. Throughout the opinion we make reference
to the brief and the answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
Appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
3

Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025

With full consideration being given to the subject
matter on appeal, the examiner’s rejection and the arguments
of appellant and the examiner, for the reasons stated infra
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
25 through 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant asserts that independent claim 27 recites a
step of providing an electric powered vehicle with a chassis
and wherein the battery module completes the chassis when
the battery module is inserted into the chassis thereby
providing the required structural integrity to support the
vehicle during travel. See Brief p. 4. Appellant argues
that Weaver teaches a battery powered feed cart with a
battery drawer. The battery drawer is located within the
undercarriage but in no way discloses or suggests that the
battery drawer “is necessary to complete the undercarriage
22 and thus provide the undercarriage with required
structural integrity.” Instead, appellant asserts that
Weaver teaches the under carriage is fully formed and
capable of supporting the feed box. See brief p. 6.
Appellant further argues:
Weaver in column 9, lines 37-43, states that the
battery drawer 164 is centrally located within the
undercarriage 22 in order to provide the feed cart 20
with a favorable center of gravity. Appellant
respectfully contends that “center of gravity” in no
way discloses the completion of a chassis with required
structural integrity necessary to support an electric
powered vehicle during travel. “Center of gravity”
4

Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025

relates to preventing the feed cart 20 from tipping
over, whereas the completion of the chassis relates to
reinforcing the chassis such that the chassis has the
structural integrity necessary to withstand normal
driving conditions.

In response, the examiner states on page 5 of the
answer:
Weaver et al. teaches [sic, teach] “the battery
drawer/module (164) and the batteries contained therein
give the feed cart 20 a very favorable center of
gravity which allows the feed cart to be freely
maneuvered around the livestock feeding area without
significant danger of tipping over”, in column 9, lines
37-43. A cart chassis that is prone to tipping over
does not have “the structural integrity necessary to
withstand normal driving conditions.” In order for the
cart of Weaver to have “the structural integrity
necessary to withstand normal driving conditions” the
battery drawer/module must be in place to prevent the
cart from tipping over.

Initially we note that there is no disagreement
concerning Weaver’s teaching that centrally locating the
battery in the feed cart is to provide a favorable center of
gravity, rather the disagreement is as to whether this
teaching meets the limitations of claim 27. We disagree with
the examiner’s claim interpretation and determination that
having a favorable center of gravity provides the claimed
structural integrity. Independent claim 27, recites “whereby
the battery module completes the chassis upon insertion in
the battery module compartment thereby providing the chassis
the required structural integrity necessary to support the
electric powered vehicle during travel.” Implicit in this
5

Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025

limitation is that the chassis is not complete until the
battery module is inserted into the chassis. We consider the
scope of this limitation to require the battery module,
which upon being inserted into the chassis of the electric
vehicle, to provide the chassis with the structure necessary
to support the vehicle during travel, i.e. the battery
module and the chassis provide the structure which supports
the vehicle. The examiner has not shown that the chassis of
Weaver’s feed cart is requires the battery module to support
the feed cart during vehicle travel. The center or gravity
of the feed cart relates to the distribution of mass of the
feed cart, preventing the vehicle from tipping relates to
the dynamics of the vehicle during travel. We do not find
that these concepts relate to whether the structure of the
feed cart can support the feed cart during vehicle travel.
The examiner has not asserted nor do we find that Chase
teaches or suggests modifying Weaver to include such a
feature. Accordingly, we will not sustain
6

Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025

the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 27 or the
claims dependent thereupon, claims 25, 26 and 29. The
decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ROBERT E. NAPPI ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANTON W. FETTING )
Administrative Patent Judge )

7

Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025

Law Offices of Christopher L. Makay
1634 Milam Building
115 East Travis Street
San Antonio, TX 78205-1763

REN/ki
8