Ex Parte Khakhalev

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2016

12794949 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121794,949 06/07/2010
102772 7590 09/09/2016
Buckert Patent & Trademark Law Firm, P,C,
2731 South Adams Road, Suite 109
Rochester Hills, MI 48309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alex Khakhalev
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CMT0182US 1011
EXAMINER
CHMIELECKI, SCOTT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2016 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):
john@buckertlawfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEX KHAKHALEV
Appeal2015-004829
Application 12/794,949
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 3-7, and 26-30 of
Application 12/794,949 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 2-
14 (June 5, 2014). Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 LG Chem, Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-004829
Application 12/794,949
BACKGROUND
The '949 Application describes an improved battery module and
methods for bonding a cell terminal of the battery module to an interconnect
device. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1 is representative of the '949 Application's claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A battery module, comprising:
a battery cell having a cell terminal;
an exothermal reactive layer having first and second sides, the
first side being disposed adjacent to the cell terminal, the
exothermal reactive layer having at least first, second, and third
aluminum layers and at least first, second, and third nickel layers,
the first aluminum layer being disposed between the first and
second nickel layers, the second aluminum layer being disposed
between the second and third nickel layers, and the third
aluminum layer being disposed adjacent to the third nickel layer;
an interconnect member being disposed between the cell
terminal of the battery cell and another cell terminal of another
battery cell, the interconnect member being configured to be
coupled to the cell terminal of the battery cell and to the another
cell terminal of the another battery cell, the interconnect member
being disposed adjacent to the second side of the exothermal
reactive layer, the exothermal reactive layer being disposed
between and contacting both the interconnect member and the
cell terminal, the exothermal reactive layer configured to ignite
to form a bonding joint between the interconnect member and the
cell terminal in response to a laser beam contacting at least a
portion of the exothermal reactive layer; and
the battery cell includes a body portion, an extension portion
coupled to the body portion, and the cell terminal; the extension
portion extending outwardly from a top region of the body
portion, the cell terminal extending outwardly from a top region
of the extension portion, the exothermal reactive layer disposed
parallel and against a portion of the cell terminal and extending
in a vertical direction with respect to a bottom edge of the battery
2
Appeal2015-004829
Application 12/794,949
cell, the exothermal reactive layer and the interconnect member
being disposed external of the battery cell, a thickness of the
interconnect member being greater than a thickness of the cell
terminal, and a thickness of the interconnect member being
greater than a thickness of the exothermal reactive layer, and a
thickness of the cell terminal being greater than a thickness of
the exothermal layer.
App. Br. 14--15.
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3-7, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination ofNakanishi,2 Weihs, 3
and Han. 4 Ans. 3.
2. Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Nakanishi, Weihs, and
Han. Ans. 14.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues for the reversal of the obviousness rejection to
claims 1, 3-7, and 26-28 on the basis of limitations present in independent
claim 1. See App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4--6. We, therefore, limit our
analysis to claim 1 for this rejection. Claims 3-7, and 26-28 will stand or
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant separately argues
for the reversal of the obviousness rejection to claims 29 and 30. See App.
Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 7-8.
2 US 2004/0023108 Al, published Feb. 5, 2004.
3 US 2004/0247931 Al, published Dec. 9, 2004.
4 US 2009/0311607 Al, published Dec. 17, 2009.
3
Appeal2015-004829
Application 12/794,949
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, and 26-28 as
obvious over the combination of Nakanishi, Weihs, and Han. Ans. 3.
The Examiner asserts that Nakanishi describes every component of
the battery module of claim 1, except Nakanishi does not teach: (i) an
interconnect member disposed between the terminals of different battery
cells, (ii) that the cell terminal extends outward from an extension portion of
the battery cell, and (iii) the exothermal reactive layer. Ans. 3--4; 7.
To remedy deficiencies (i) and (ii), the Examiner found that Han
discloses bridge connector 4205 welded to terminals 4200a and 4200b of
different battery cells 300a and 300b. Id. at 4 (citing Han i-f 146; Fig. 42).
According to the Examiner, Han teaches that terminal members 4225 and
4230 extend outward from extension portions. Ans. 4--5 (citing Han i-fi-1 148-
149; Fig. 42). To remedy deficiency (iii), the Examiner found Weihs
teaches an exothermic bonding material comprising alternating layers of
nickel 16 and aluminum 18 that bonds adjacent materials upon laser
exposure. Ans. 5 (citing Weihs i1i121-22; Fig. 1).
Appellant argues that this rejection should be reversed because:
(1) one skilled in the art would not have had any motivation to combine
Han's external interconnect member 4205 with Nakanishi's internal current
collector plate 6, App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4--6, (2) Weihs teaches away
from the present invention because Weihs' two components 10 to be bonded
contact two solder layers 12, but not the exothermal reactive layer (i.e., foil
14) as required by claim 1, App. Br. 10-11, and (3) the applied prior art fails
to teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 1 regarding the relative
thickness of battery module components. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6.
First, because Nakanishi' s internal current collector 6 provides an
electrical connection to the cell terminal, the Examiner reasonably
4
Appeal2015-004829
Application 12/794,949
determined that it suggests an interconnect member to the ordinary skilled
artisan. Ans. 15-16. The Examiner concluded that it was well known that
multiple battery cells could be electrically connected at their terminals
through Han's external interconnect member 4205. Id. at 16; see Han Fig.
42. As the Examiner explained, the ordinary skilled artisan would have
understood "that these fundamental electrical connections could be made
either inside or outside of the battery case." Ans. 16.
The Examiner made a reasoned determination that Appellant has done
nothing more than combine known electrical interconnects between
terminals to yield the predictable result of establishing fundamental
electrical connections between battery cells and battery terminals. Id.; see In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[T]o establish a prima facie
case of obviousness based on a combination of elements disclosed in the
prior art, the [Examiner] must articulate the basis on which it concludes that
it would have been obvious to make the claimed invention."); see also In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Thus, the Examiner has articulated the rationale for combining
Nakanishi and Han.
Second, we are likewise not persuaded by Appellant's teaching away
argument (2). The teachings of a reference that arguably teaches away from
a claimed feature must be weighed alongside the teachings of a cited
reference that teaches the propriety of employing that feature. Para-
Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Imps. Int'!, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir.
1995).
Although Appellant alleges W eihs teaches that two solder layers 12
on either side of foil 14 prevents any "exothermal reactive layer ...
contacting" as required by claim 1, the Examiner cites disclosure explaining
5
Appeal2015-004829
Application 12/794,949
that solder layer 12 is optional. See Ans. 16 (citing W eihs i-f 48 (explaining
that "openings in foil 14 allow joining material 12, or bulk material 10 in
some circumstances, to extrude" (emphasis added))). W eihs, furthermore,
explicitly teaches circumstances in which bonding of adjacent materials by
an exothermal reactive layer does not require joining material, i.e., solder
layer 12. See Weihs i-f 8 (teaching that "[i]f no joining material is used, the
foil reaction supplies heat directly to at least two bulk materials, melting a
portion of each bulk, which upon cooling, form a strong bond.").
Thus, Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's
finding that W eihs teaches the requisite contacting by the exothermal
reactive layer.
Third, Appellant argues that Han "illustrates that a thickness of a cell
terminal 4200b is substantially equal to a thickness of the interconnect
member 4205." App. Br. 11 (boldface added) (citing Han Fig. 42). The
Examiner, on the other hand, argues that Han explicitly states that the
depicted components are not drawn to scale. Ans. 17 (citing Han i136 ("The
components in the figures are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead
being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention.")). In
response, Appellant alleges that Han's statement "merely indicates that the
illustrated components in Han may be increased or decreased in size
proportionally with one another." Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because it is based on an incorrect
presumption of what Han's statement means.
In sum, Appellant has not pointed to persuasive evidence that supports
their contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
dissuaded from including components from Nakanishi' s battery cell with the
6
Appeal2015-004829
Application 12/794,949
exothermal reactive layer of Weihs in contact with the interconnect member
and battery cells of Han. We, therefore, affirm Rejection 1.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 30 as obvious over
the combination of Nakanishi, Weihs, and Han. Ans. 14.
Appellant, inter alia, relies on an argument similar to argument (3)
above for his assertion that the rejection of claims 29 and 30 should be
reversed. App. Br. 12-13 (citing Han Fig. 42). Appellant argues that Han
illustrates in Figure 42 that "the terminals 4200a and 4200b do not extend
vertically past an end of the traverse member 4220." App. Br. 13 (boldface
added). For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by
Appellant's argument. Likewise, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
assertion that Figure 3 of Weihs "actually teaches away from having an end
of a member disposed adjacent to the reactive foil extending vertically past
an end of the reactive foil 14." App. Br. 12 (emphasis in original) (boldface
added). Weihs explicitly discloses that "[i]t is to be understood that these
drawings are for the purpose of illustrating the concepts of the invention and
are not to scale." Weihs i-f 19 (emphasis added). We, therefore, affirm
Rejection 2.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1,
3-7, and 26-30 of the '949 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7