Ex Parte Eilers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 24, 2003

09377015 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte DEREK EILERS
__________
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before FRANKFORT, OWENS, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-29,
which are all of the claims in the application.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a recloseable container, such as a
battery pack, having an explosion prevention safety device
comprised of a highly rigid panel with means for forming a pair
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
2
of outwardly swinging doors when the panel ruptures. Claim 22 is
illustrative:
22. A recloseable container having walls defining an
interior which, when said container is closed, is subjected to at
least one of a first and a second pressure, said first pressure
much lower than said second pressure, said container comprising:
a highly rigid integral panel at least partially forming one
of the container walls, said panel having an interior surface
exposed to said interior of said container, and an opposite,
exterior surface, said panel having an unruptured state at said
first pressure, said panel urged into a ruptured state in
response to an increase in interior pressure from said first
pressure to said second pressure; and
means for forming a pair of outwardly swinging doors in said
panel as said panel is urged into its said ruptured state, said
doors being open and attached to said panel in said ruptured
state.
THE REFERENCES
Kinuta 6,180,279 Jan. 30, 2001
(filed Dec. 9, 1997)
Takada et al. (Takada) 6,210,825 Apr. 3, 2001
(§ 102(e) date Aug. 12, 1998)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-21 and 23-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description
requirement, and claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kinuta in view of Takada.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
1 This limitation was added (amendment filed August 22,
2001, paper no. 7) in response to the examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kinuta in view of Takada (office action
mailed June 12, 2001, paper no. 6).
3
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement if it conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the
invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-
64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Edwards,
568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978); In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner argues that the appellant’s originally-filed
disclosure does not provide adequate written descriptive support
for the highly rigid panel “being formed of a single material
layer” as recited in claims 1 and 23.1 The appellant argues that
the appellant’s figure 4, which is a greatly enlarged cross
sectional view (specification, page 4, line 11) and has cross
hatching lines extending from exterior surface 36 to interior
surface 38 of panel 34, shows that panel 34 is a single material
layer (brief, page 8). In response, the examiner argues that
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
4
Kinuta’s safety device 1 is described (col. 3, lines 16-24) and
shown (figure 2D) as having two layers, but is shown in figure 4A
with cross hatching which extends from one surface to the
opposite surface (answer, pages 3-4). Thus, the examiner argues,
Kinuta indicates that cross hatching extending from one surface
to the opposite surface of a layer may be used to illustrate
multiple layers (answer, page 4).
Kinuta’s figure 4A, which shows cross hatching extending
from one surface to the opposite surface of the explosion
prevention safety device, is an overall view of the explosion
prevention safety device and the battery casing (col. 3, lines 3-
5). When the explosion prevention safety device itself is shown
in an enlarged view in figure 2D, what is shown by surface-to-
surface cross hatching in figure 4A appears as two layers (11
and 13). Kinuta, therefore, indicates that if the appellant’s
highly rigid panel has more than one layer, the multiple layers
should be visible in a greatly enlarged cross-sectional view of
the highly rigid panel.
The appellant’s figure 4, however, which provides such a
greatly enlarged cross-sectional view (specification, page 4,
line 11), shows, by surface-to-surface cross hatching, that the
highly rigid panel is a single layer. Moreover, the appellant’s
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
5
specification discloses (page 5, lines 17-19): “Cover 14 is
machined, stamped or otherwise formed from a material such as,
for example, A16061-T6 aluminum, as case 12 may be. It is
envisioned that cover 14 may alternatively be formed of a
suitable, injection molded polymer.” These teachings that the
cover, which includes the highly rigid panel (specification,
page 5, lines 21-26), is formed from “a material” or “a suitable,
injection molded polymer,” indicate that the highly rigid panel
is formed from single material.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing that the appellant’s originally-filed disclosure
would have failed to convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the
inventor was in possession of a highly rigid panel formed of a
single material layer as required by the appellant’s independent
claims 1 and 23, and claims which depend therefrom. Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The appellant’s claim 22 requires “means for forming a pair
of outwardly swinging doors in said panel as said panel is urged
into its said ruptured state, said doors being open and attached
to said panel in said ruptured state.”
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
6
The portion of Kinuta relied upon by the examiner for this
claim requirement is figure 5B (office action mailed June 12,
2001, paper no. 6, pages 3-4). The examiner argues that “[t]he
annular groove (as shown in Fig. 5B) is a means for forming a
pair of outwardly swinging doors (clm 22). When the safety valve
is ruptured along the third segment [i.e., groove 2 having thin
floor 3], the two portions on either side of the third segment
will be blown outwards (swinging doors)” (office action mailed
June 12, 2001, paper no. 6, page 4).
The examiner’s argument that the portions on either side of
the groove in figure 5B are blown outwards when the safety valve
ruptures along the groove is mere speculation. Kinuta’s only
discussions of this figure are the following:
FIG. 5B is a plan view of an explosion prevention
safety device with yet another safety valve groove
configuration. [col. 3, lines 9-10]
* * *
Instead, the groove 2 may also have a non-closed
configuration such as the shapes shown in FIG. 5.
[col. 4, lines 53-55]
Moreover, the examiner’s argument appears to be inconsistent
with Kinuta’s discussion regarding another embodiment. In that
embodiment, an explosion prevention safety device composed of a
thin metal floor (3) having a second metal layer (13) thereon has
a portion removed from the second metal layer so as to form a
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
7
circular groove (2) composed only of the thin metal floor
(figure 2D; col. 4, lines 30-35). Kinuta teaches that
when the pressure in the battery casing rises to the
prescribed level, the safety valve functions by blowing
along the floor of the groove which, being thinner, is
weakened, releasing the gas in the casing preventing
the battery from exploding and thereby also preventing
collateral damage to surrounding equipment from such an
explosion [col. 4, lines 44-49].
Kinuta indicates that the plug within the circular groove (figure
1A) blows out when the battery explodes, but Kinuta does not
teach that the portion of the explosion prevention safety device
outside the groove, which is composed of both the thin metal
floor and the second metal layer, is deformed when the battery
explodes. Kinuta’s discussion of this embodiment does not
indicate that in the embodiment shown in figure 5B relied upon by
the examiner, the portion of the explosion prevention safety
device outside the groove, which likewise is composed of a thin
metal floor and a second metal layer, is deformed when the
battery explodes. If anything, Kinuta indicates that the groove
in figure 5B, which is shown as being comparable in size to the
circular groove and portion therein in the other embodiment
(figure 1A), is sufficiently large to relieve the pressure in the
battery when it explodes, without any deformation of the metal
surrounding the groove.
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
8
The examiner argues that the thicknesses of the appellant’s
exemplified panel and groove are, respectively, 0.032" (813
m)
and 0.009" (229
m), which is a ratio of 3.6 (specification,
page 7, lines 9-11), whereas the thicknesses of Kinuta’s
exemplified panel and groove are, respectively, 50
m and 10-
20
m, which is a ratio of 2.5 to 5 (answer, pages 5-6). This
comparison, the examiner argues, indicates that Kinuta provides a
means for forming outwardly swinging doors. See id. This
argument is not well taken because the examiner has not
established that the capability of forming swinging doors depends
solely on the relative thickness of the panel and groove, rather
than also depending on other factors such as the width of the
groove and the material of construction of the panel.
The examiner argues that “the device does not have to blow
anywhere but along floor 3 to form a pair of outwardly swinging
doors. Specifically, the part of the device adjacent to each
side of the groove provides a means of bending outwards to form
the ‘swinging doors’” (answer, page 5). The examiner, however,
has not established that the pressure in the exploding battery is
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
9
not relieved by Kinuta’s groove before the metal surrounding the
groove can bend outward to form swinging doors.
The examiner’s arguments require that the portions of the
explosion prevention safety device in Kinuta’s figure 5B outside
the groove inherently are capable of bending outward and forming
swinging doors when the battery explodes. The grooves in
Kinuta’s figures 5A and 5B may have the shown configurations,
rather than having a large rectangular configuration, for the
same reason that the appellant’s grooves have their particular
shape, i.e., to provide strength during normal operation while
providing a large, generally-rectangular opening for gas release
by outward bending of the portions surrounding the grooves when
the battery explodes (specification, page 2, lines 16-23 and
page 7, lines 11-14). As indicated by the above discussion of
Kinuta, however, this is not a disclosed capability of Kinuta’s
explosion prevention safety device. Hence, it is merely a
possibility. An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and
not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner relies upon Takada only for a suggestion to use
Kinuta’s explosion prevention safety device on a recloseable
container (office action mailed June 12, 2001, paper no. 6,
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
10
pages 4-5), and not for any teaching which remedies the above-
discussed deficiency in Kinuta.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellant’s claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-21 and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, and
claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kinuta in view of Takada, are
reversed.
REVERSED
Charles E. Frankfort )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Terry J. Owens ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Jeffrey V. Nase )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO:tdl
Appeal No. 2003-0423
Application No. 09/377,015
11
Michael D. Smith
Baker and Daniels
111 East Wayne Street, Ste. 800
Fort Wayne, IN 46802