Ex Parte Maguire et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2012

11876965 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/876,965 10/23/2007 Patrick Daniel Maguire 81160752 7154
28395 7590 10/15/2012
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
MOHADDES, LADAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PATRICK DANIEL MAGUIRE,
SARAV PARAMASIVAM, and
JEFFREY JOSEPH OMICHINSKI
____________

Appeal 2011-009630
Application 11/876,965
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claim 1 as anticipated by
Smith (US 2006/0116062 A1, published Jun. 1, 2006) and of independent
claims 1 and 10 as anticipated by Watanabe (US 6,613,472 B1, patented
Sep. 2, 2003) and under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or § 103(a) of various
combinations of dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 as either anticipated by
these respective references or unpatentable over these respective references
Appeal 2011-009630
Application 11/876,965

2
in combination with other prior art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a system for cooling a vehicle battery comprising "a
duct connected with the battery and movable between decking and securing
positions relative to the battery" (claim 1). Appellants also claim a system
for cooling electrochemical cells of a power storage unit enclosure for a
vehicle comprising "a duct including a mounting plate connected with the
power storage unit enclosure wherein the duct is movable between
unassembled and assembled positions relative to the power storage unit
enclosure" (claim 10).
Representative claims 1 and 10, the only independent claims on
appeal, read as follows:
1. A system for cooling a vehicle battery comprising:

a battery; and

a duct connected with the battery and moveable between decking and
securing positions relative to the battery.

10. A system for cooling electrochemical cells of a power storage
unit for a vehicle, the system comprising:

a power storage unit enclosure to contain the electrochemical cells;
and

a duct including a mounting plate connected with the power storage
unit enclosure wherein the duct is moveable between unassembled and
assembled positions relative to the power storage unit enclosure and wherein
the duct is in fluid communication with the power storage unit enclosure so
Appeal 2011-009630
Application 11/876,965

3
as to direct a conditioning fluid for the electrochemical cells if the duct is in
the assembled position.

The Examiner finds that one or both of these independent claims are
anticipated by either Smith or Watanabe because each of these references
discloses a duct connected with a battery via bolts which render the duct
movable (i.e., disconnectable by unbolting) relative to the battery (Ans. 3-4,
11-12).
Appellants argue that Smith and Watanabe fail to teach systems
wherein the duct is both connected and movable between the recited
positions as required by the independent claims (App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner indicates that the ducts of Smith and Watanabe are
capable of being moved relative to the battery because they are capable of
being unbolted from the battery (Ans. 11). However, the Examiner has not
provided this record with any specific explanation why these ducts are both
connected as well as movable as defined by independent claims 1 and 10.
Based on the record before us, Appellants' argument is persuasive.
For this reason, the § 102 rejections are not sustained. The Examiner
does not rely on the other applied prior art to supply the above deficiencies
of Smith and Watanabe. Accordingly, the § 103 rejections also are not
sustained.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
cam