Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

14640370 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
14/640,370 03/06/2015 Daniel MILLER 83494255;67186-148 1087
PUS1
46442 7590 01/29/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
DOLAK, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 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 DANIEL MILLER and DAVE MOSCHET
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,3701
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellants, “Ford Global Technologies, LLC, is the real
party in interest.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1,11, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An electrified vehicle, comprising:
a floor pan; and
a battery assembly mounted directly to an underside of
said floor pan, said battery assembly including an open top such
that said floor pan acts as a cover of said battery assembly.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Kovach et al. (US 8,517,131 B2, issued Aug. 27, 2013)
(“Kovach”).
Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Kovach and Anazawa (US 6,188,574 Bl, issued
Feb. 13, 2001).2
Claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kovach and Shindou (US 7,743,863 B2, issued June 29, 2010).
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kovach and Laitinen (US 8,852,794 B2, issued Oct. 7, 2014).
2 The Examiner sets forth separate statements for the rejection of claims 5
and 16, claims 6, 15, 19, and 20, and claims 8, 10, 12, 17, and 18. See
Ans. 5—7. The separate statements are unnecessary because each rejection is
based upon the same combination of references. As such, we consolidate
the statements into a single ground of rejection.
2
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2, 4, and 9
The Appellants argue that Kovach does not disclose “a battery
assembly mounted directly to an underside of said floor pan,” as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). The Appellants contend that one
of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the term “battery assembly”
consistent with the Specification would not understand the term to include
Kovach’s battery tray support structure 18 because “support structure 18 is a
completely separate structure from the battery assembly 16.” Reply Br. 2;
see Appeal Br. 2-A (citing Kovach, Figs. 2—3). The Appellants’ argument
does not apprise us of Examiner error.
At the outset, we note that the term “battery assembly” is not
explicitly defined in the Specification. We understand the plain and
ordinary meaning of the term “battery assembly” to refer to the putting
together of manufactured parts that relate to a battery to make a completed
product.3 As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
claimed “battery assembly” requires a completed product of manufactured
parts that are put together to mount the completed product “directly to an
underside of said floor pan.” See Appeal Br., Claims App. The foregoing is
consistent with the Specification, which discloses that the parts of the
“battery assembly” (e.g., a tray, battery arrays, battery electronics, and
cooling or electrical lines) are put together to make a completed product,
3 “Assembly” is defined as “[t]he putting together of manufactured parts to
make a completed product, such as a machine or electronic circuit.”
Assembly Definition 4a, THEFREEDICTIONARY.COM,
https://www.theffeedictionary.com/assembly (last visited Jan. 23, 2018).
3
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
which is mounted directly to the underside 42 of floor pan 20. See Spec.
32, 33, 39. We note that drawings show battery arrays 34 and battery
electronics 36 within tray 24. See, e.g., id. Figs. 2—3. The Specification,
however, does not limit the “battery assembly” to those parts existing solely
within tray 24; for example, temporary cover 60 and connectors 38 are
positioned outside of tray 24 and are parts of the “battery assembly.” More
specifically, the Specification describes that the “battery assembly”
“optionally includes a temporary cover 60,” which “may be removably
secured to the top flange 32 of the tray 24.” Id. 138, Fig. 3. Also, the
Specification discloses that battery assembly 16 has connectors 38 that “may
extend from one or more of the sidewalls 28 of the tray 24.” Id. 133; see id.
122, Fig. 2. As such, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the term “battery assembly” may include structures
that are not within the tray of a battery assembly.
In the case of Kovach, battery mounting assembly 10 includes battery
tray 14, which is configured to carry vehicle battery 16 and battery tray
support structure 18, which is mounted to an underside 20 of vehicle 12
(e.g., floor board member 48) for carrying battery 16. See Kovach, col. 2,
11. 1—7, col. 3,11. 19—31. We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that Kovach’s battery assembly 10, which includes battery
support tray structure 18, mounts directly to floor pan 20, 48. See also
Ans. 10. But see Appeal Br. 3 (The Appellants assert that battery 16 is not
directly mounted to an underside of floor board member 48.). As such, we
agree with the Examiner that Kovach discloses “a battery assembly mounted
directly to an underside of said floor pan.” See Final Act. 3, Ans. 10.
4
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
Also, the Appellants argue Kovach does not disclose that the “battery
assembly includ[es] an open top such that said floor pan acts as a cover of
said battery assembly,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis
omitted). The Appellants assert Kovach’s battery 16 lacks an open top and,
floor board member 48 does not act as a cover for battery 16. See id. at 4.
The Appellants’ argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. As
discussed above, Kovach’s battery assembly includes battery tray 14 and
battery support tray structure 18 and these structures include an open top
such that floor board member 48 acts as a cover for Kovach’s battery
assembly.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and
dependent claims 2, 4, and 9, as anticipated by Kovach. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Dependent Claim 3
The Appellants argue that contrary to the Examiner’s finding,
Kovach’s battery 16 does not correspond to the “high voltage battery
assembly,” as recited in claim 3. Appeal Br. 5. The Appellants support this
argument, among other things, by asserting that “Kovach does not include
any disclosure related to hybrid or electric vehicles[, which] is strong
evidence that the battery 16 is more than likely not a ‘high voltage’ device.”
Reply Br. 2. We determine that the Appellants’ argument is persuasive of
Examiner error.
The Specification distinguishes a conventional motor vehicle, which
“rel[ies] exclusively on the internal combustion engine to drive [a] vehicle”
from electrified vehicles that are “selectively driven by one or more battery
5
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
powered electric machines” where “[a] high voltage battery pack is
employed to power the electric machines of an electrified vehicle.” See
Spec. 2—3. Kovach describes that vehicle battery 16 “can be a
conventional lead acid type battery or some other battery.” Kovach, col. 2,
11. 3^4 ; see Ans. 10. In this case, we determine that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not understand the term “high voltage battery assembly,” when
read consistent with the Specification, to correspond to Kovach’s battery 16.
In this case, Kovach implies that its battery is for a conventional motor
vehicle and vaguely references some other non-specific battery, which is
inadequate to support the Examiner’s finding.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 3
as anticipated by Kovach.
Dependent Claim 5
Claim 5, which depends from independent claim 1, recites “a seal
disposed between said battery assembly and said floor pan.” Appeal Br. 10,
Claims App. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the seal,
required by claim 5, is a separate structure from the “battery assembly” and
“floor pan” because the “seal” is disposed between the “battery assembly”
and “floor pan.” See also Spec. 142. Stated otherwise, the “seal” logically
cannot be disposed between the “battery assembly” and the “floor pan” if it
is part of the battery assembly or the “floor pan.”
The Examiner finds that Kovach fails, but Anazawa teaches the “seal”
required by claim 5. Final Act. 6. Here, the Examiner relies on seal flange
16, packing 64, and mounting flanges 17 to correspond to the “seal” required
by claim 5. Id.', see Anazawa, col. 3,11. 8—10, col. 4,1. 28. The Examiner
6
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
identifies the “battery assembly” as Anazawa’s battery 30, including battery
cells 31, and the “floor pan” as Anazawa’s floor plate 58, side frames 61,
and side sills 62. Final Act. 6; see also Anazawa, col. 3,11. 21—22, col. 4,
11. 15-17.
The Appellants argue that Anazawa’s seal flange 16, packing 64, and
mounting flange 17 do not correspond to the “seal” required by claim 5.
Appeal Br. 5. We determine that the Appellants’ argument is persuasive of
Examiner error.
Anazawa’s battery box 10 includes, among other things, seal flange
16 and mounting flanges 17 and battery 30, including battery cells 31, which
are mounted on battery box 10. See Anazawa, col. 3,11. 6—14, col. 4,11. 18—
32, Fig. 6. Based on the definition provided above for the term “battery
assembly,” i.e., the putting together of manufactured parts that relate to a
battery to make a completed product, we determine that one skilled in the art
would understand Anazawa’s seal flange 16 and mounting flanges 17 to be
part of the Anazawa’s battery assembly. Moreover, we determine that seal
flange 16 and mounting flanges 17 are not part of a structure separate from
Anazawa’s battery assembly and, as such, cannot be considered a seal, i.e., a
separate structure, as required by claim 5. Further, we fail to understand
how Anazawa’s packing 64 acts as a seal by itself.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 5
as unpatentable over Kovach and Anazawa.
Dependent Claim 6
Claim 6, which depends from independent claim 1, recites “wherein
said floor pan includes at least one locating stud for locating said battery
7
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
assembly relative to said floor pan.” Appeal Br. 10, Claims App. (emphasis
added). See, e.g., Spec. 144, Fig. 8.
The Appellants argue the Examiner’s position that Anazawa’s bolt 63
corresponds to a “locating stud,” as required by claim 6, is in error because
bolt 63 is not included as part of a floor pan. Appeal Br. 7. In response, the
Examiner states:
The elements of Anazawa cited include the side frame 61 and the
screwing bolts 63 which at least a portion thereof are connected
to and form a portion of the Anazawa[’s] floor plate 58 and are
both provided in Fig[s]. 1-12 for attaching or relatively locating
the battery to the floor plate.
Ans. 13—14; see Final Act. 6. However, as correctly pointed out by the
Appellants, Anazawa’s screwing bolts 63 are not part of floor plate 58 or
side frames 61. See Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Further, we fail to
understand — and the Examiner fails to adequately explain — how side
frame 61 by itself corresponds to the claimed “locating stud.”
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6
as unpatentable over Kovach and Anazawa.
Dependent Claim 7
The Appellants argue the addition of Shindou fails to cure the
deficiency of the rejection of independent claim 1, which claim 7 depends
from directly. Appeal Br. 8; see also id. at 10, Claims App. The Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 does not suffer from the asserted deficiency. Supra.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over
Kovach and Shindou.
8
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
Dependent Claims 8 and 10
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 8 and 10, which
depend from claim 1, directly and indirectly, respectively, does not cure the
deficiency of the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. As discussed above,
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 does not suffer from the asserted
deficiency. Supra. The Appellants do not appear to present additional
arguments for claim 8. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8
as unpatentable over Kovach and Anazawa.
The Appellants appear to argue separately for claim 10. See Appeal
Br. 8 (“[Anazawa’s] batteries 30 are not recessed from the top flange 16”).
Claim 10, which depends from claim 9, recites “a battery array recessed
from said top flange within said tray.” Appeal Br. 11, Claims App.
The Examiner explains “that the Anazawa reference was provided in
the rejection for the teaching of a battery array 30 which was not explicitly
taught by the Kovach reference.” Ans. 15. Among other things, the
Examiner determines Kovach’s battery 16 is recessed from upper flanges 44,
the combination of reference teachings would have resulted in the subject
matter of claim 10, and the result would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Id.', see Final Act. 8. The Appellants do not appear
to further argue the rejection of claim 10 in the Reply Brief.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable
over Kovach and Anazawa.
Independent Claim 11 and Dependent Claims 12—15
Independent claim 11 is directed to a method, including a step of
“mounting a high voltage battery assembly.” Appeal Br. 11, Claims App.
9
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
For similar reasons as those provided for the rejection of claim 3, we agree
with the Appellants that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11. Thus, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as anticipated by
Kovach. The remaining rejections based on Kovach in combination with
Anazawa, Shindou, or Laitinen rely on the same erroneous finding discussed
above with regard to claim 11. Each of the remaining rejections are not
cured by additional findings and/or reasoning associated therewith. As such,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 12 and 15 as
unpatentable over Kovach and Anazawa; claim 13 as unpatentable over
Kovach and Shindou; and claim 14 as unpatentable over Kovach and
Laitinen.
Independent Claim 16 and Dependent Claims 17—20
Independent claim 16 is directed to an electrified vehicle including
battery assembly, a floor plan, and “a seal sandwiched between a top flange
of said battery assembly and said underside of said floor pan.” Appeal
Br. 11, Claims App. For similar reasons as those provided for the rejection
of claim 5, we agree with the Appellants that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 16, and claims 17—20, which depend either directly or indirectly from
claim 16. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16—20
as unpatentable over Kovach and Anazawa.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting: claims 1, 2, 4, and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kovach; claims 8 and 10
10
Appeal 2017-005418
Application 14/640,370
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kovach and Anazawa; and
claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kovach and Shindou.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting: claims 3 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kovach; claims 5, 6, 12, and
15—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kovach and Anazawa;
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kovach and Shindou;
and, claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kovach and
Laitinen.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11