Ex Parte Kimoto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2019

14685936 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/685,936 04/14/2015
46442 7590 03/04/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masahiro Kimoto
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.
83526557; 67186-179PUS1 4457
EXAMINER
0 DONNELL, LUCAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAHIRO KIMOTO
Appeal2018-005448
Application 14/685,936
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
September 1, 2017 decision finally rejecting claims 1-20 ("Final Act."). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies LLC, which is also
identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1 ). Appellant states that
Ford Global Technologies LLC is ultimately owned by Ford Motor
Company (id.).
Appeal2018-005448
Application 14/685,936
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosure is directed to an array plate of a battery
assembly (Spec. ,r 1 ). The array plate has an electronic component
contained within a cavity in the array plate (Abstract). Details of the
claimed invention are set forth in independent claims 1, 11, and 20, which
are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
1. An assembly, comprising:
a plurality of battery cells;
an array plate positioned against a side of at least one of the
plurality of battery cells to hold the plurality of battery cells; and
an electronic component held within a cavity of the array plate.
11. A method, comprising:
housing an electronic component within a cavity of an
array plate; and
holding a battery cell of an array with the array plate.
20. An assembly, comprising:
a plurality of battery cells;
an endplate holding the plurality of battery cells;
a spacer providing a plurality of flow passages that
communicate a flow of air to cool the plurality of battery cells,
the spacer positioned between the plurality of battery cells and
the endplate; and
an electronic component held within a cavity of the
endplate.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14--18, and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Asai. 2
2 Asai et al., US 2011/0206948 Al, published August 25, 2011.
2
Appeal2018-005448
Application 14/685,936
II. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Asai.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1. "A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ifit discloses every claim limitation." In re
Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Verizon Servs.
Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Appellant argues that Asai does not disclose an "array plate positioned
against a side of at least one of the plurality of battery cells to hold the
plurality of battery cells" and, therefore, does not anticipate claim 1 (Appeal
Br. 3). The Examiner finds that Asai's circuit board holder 61 coupled with
endplate 4a, as shown in FIG. 10, corresponds to the claimed array plate:
_.,., '
4A
Asai's FIG. 10 shows an exploded oblique view of the first endplate region
of a battery stack
The Examiner finds the claimed array plate is not limited to a one-
piece construction and, therefore, endplate 4A coupled with circuit board
holder 61 "function[ s] as an 'array plate' as claimed and are positioned
3
Appeal2018-005448
Application 14/685,936
against a side of at least one of the plurality of battery cells to hold the
plurality of battery cells" (Final Act. 12-13).
Appellant makes several arguments urging reversal of the anticipation
rejection: (1) Asai's circuit board holder 61 does not hold any battery cells,
and therefore cannot correspond to the claimed array plate, which holds the
plurality of battery cells (Appeal Br. 3--4); (2) the Examiner's position that
the circuit board holder 61 and endplate 4a when coupled together
correspond to the claimed array plate is "misplaced" because endplate 4a is
a separate structure from circuit board holder 61.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to argument ( 1 ), the Examiner does not find that Asai' s
circuit board holder 61 alone corresponds to the claimed array plate (Final
Act. 12-13). Accordingly, Appellant's arguments regarding circuit board 61
alone do not show error in the anticipation rejection.
With respect to argument (2), there is no dispute that Asai's circuit
board 61 and endplate 4a are at least manufactured as separate components.
However, the Examiner finds that circuit board holder 61 and endplate 4A
are coupled together and, when coupled, are positioned against a side of one
of the battery cells to hold the plurality of battery cells (Ans. 4-5). Appellant
does not directly dispute this finding, but instead argues that a "person
having skill in this art would understand that an array plate is not a circuit
board holder near an endplate" (Reply Br. 1 ). However, this argument
misapprehends the Examiner's finding ( circuit board holder 61 and endplate
4A are not merely "near" each other, but are coupled together), and also is
devoid of any evidentiary support. Accordingly, it is not persuasive.
Moreover, Appellant has not pointed to any disclosure in the Specification
4
Appeal2018-005448
Application 14/685,936
which would limit the claimed array plate to an integral unit, rather than two
originally separate units which have been coupled together.
Accordingly, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not offer separate substantive arguments for claims 2, 4, 7, 8,
9, 11, 14--18, or 20 (see, Appeal Br. 5, 7-10), and we therefore also affirm
the rejection of these claims.
Claim 3. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that the cavity
comprises a first wall, a second wall opposite the first wall, a third wall
extending from the first wall to the second wall, and a fourth wall extending
from the first wall to the second wall. The Examiner relies, inter alia, on
Asai's FIG. 9, and finds that circuit board holder 61 shows four walls as
shown in the attached annotated portion of FIG. 9:
Ff gun~ 2 .... Annotated port.ion of ASil! F(q. D mu.strath1g ckcuit bo~~rd hc.fdi;1r ttt
v.;ith tout p~?rirmn'er s;;,,;,1Hs> f~wnberfJt.t 1--4,, surrouru;Hng clrcuit b0{1rd dO
However, Appellant persuasively argues that what the Examiner has labeled
as wall 4 above is actually part of the circuit board 60, not circuit board
holder 61. This is consistent with the view in the analogous portion of FIG.
10, which shows circuit board holder 61 lacking a "top" wall. Moreover,
5
Appeal2018-005448
Application 14/685,936
while Paragraph 54 does indicate that block circuit board 60 is disposed
"inside perimeter walls," it does not state that there are four perimeter walls.
Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 3.
Claims 5 and 12. Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites a
cover attached directly to the array plate to enclose the electronic component
within the cavity. Claim 12, which depends from claim 11, recites covering
the cavity with a cover that is secured directly to the array plate. The
Examiner finds that Asai's cover 75, as shown in FIG. 6, corresponds to the
claimed cover (Final Act. 17). However, as argued by Appellant (Appeal
Br. 7), cover 75 is not directly attached to the circuit board holder 61 which,
in combination with endplate 4A, corresponds to the claimed array plate.
Thus, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 5 and 12.
Claim 10. Claim 10 recites the presence of a heat exchanger plate
attached directly to the array plate. The Examiner finds that this limitation is
met by Asai's cooling plate 7, which the Examiner finds is attached directly
to circuit board holder 61 because it is mounted on cooling plate 7 (Final
Act. 9). However, as argued by Appellant (Reply Br. 2-3), there is no
specific disclosure in Asai that cooling plate 7 is attached to either circuit
board holder 61 or endplate 4A (which together correspond to the claimed
array plate), as opposed to the battery stack in general. Moreover, as noted
by Appellant ( e.g. Reply Br. 2), being "in contact with" is not the same as
being "directly attached to." Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation
rejection of claim 10.
Claims 6, 13, and 19. We reverse these rejections, as the Examiner
has not adequately shown that Asai discloses or otherwise renders obvious
6
Appeal2018-005448
Application 14/685,936
the claims from which claims 6, 13 and 19 depend ( claims 5 and 12
respectively), which we addressed above.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14--18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Asai.
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 19 as
either anticipated by (claims 3, 5, 10, and 12) or unpatentable over (claims 6,
13, and 19) Asai.
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-IN-PART
7