Ex Parte Partington et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 11, 2016

11597066 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111597,066 02/19/2008 Kenneth Michael Partington
20792 7590 02/12/2016
MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, PA
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
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.
9021-17 4379
EXAMINER
WILLS, MONIQUE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1721
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH MICHAEL PARTINGTON and
GERARD CHEV ALIER
Appeal2014-003910
Application 11/597 ,066
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-12, 15, 16 and 18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a battery, a manifold assembly for a battery, and
a method for making a battery. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A battery comprising a casing having one or more gas vents,
a manifold arranged to collect gas emerging from the vents,
and a double-sided adhesive gasket arranged between the
manifold and the casing forming a seal therebetween,
Appeal2014-003910
Application 11/597 ,066
wherein the manifold includes a spigot configured to enable
gas in the manifold to be expelled therefrom.
Gelting
Badger
Provencher
The References
us 3,436,272
us 3,904,441
US 6,736,406 Bl
The Rejections
Apr. 1, 1969
Sep.9, 1975
May 18, 2004
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
10, 15, 16 and 18 over Badger in view of Gelting and claims 11and12 over
Badger in view of Gelting and Provencher.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections.
We need address only the independent claims (1, 11 and 12). Those
claims require a spigot configured to enable gas in a manifold to be expelled
therefrom. To meet that claim requirement the Examiner relies upon Badger
and Gelting (Ans. 2-3).
Badger discloses a battery vent "which can be economically formed
within the cover for an automotive type storage battery to present a pleasing
appearance without external obstructions upon the cover, as is the case with
the gang type vents or individual vent plugs" (col. 1, 11. 57-63). "[T]he
intercell electrical connections are internal so that the cover of the battery 10
presents a simplified and pleasing appearance and is characterized by the
absence of protrusions other that the positive and negative terminals" (col. 2,
11. 26-30; Fig. 1 ). The cover (11) has on its upper surface a longitudinal
channel (12) along the middle of which an elongate acid proof gasket (14)
having openings (15) positioned to coincide with apertures (13) in the
2
Appeal2014-003910
Application 11/597 ,066
cover (11) is adhesively sealed (col. 2, 11. 17-22, 33-38; Figs. 2, 3). A strip
of microporous filter material ( 16) having a width less than that of the
gasket ( 14) extends across the gasket ( 14)' s upper surface and has its upper
surface adhesively secured to the planar lower surface of an elongate
guard (17) which extends along the length of the cover (11) within the
channel (12) (col. 2, 11. 43--49; Figs. 1, 2). "[T]he guard 17 has a generally
planar upper surface with a continuous rim extending around its periphery to
provide a continuous downwardly extending lip 18 on both ends and the
sides of the guard 17 and a plurality of spaced apart platforms or spacers 19
lying outside of the filter strip 16 but within the peripheral lip 18" (col. 2,
11. 49-55; Fig. 4). "[T]he lower surface of the platforms or spacers 19 is
adhesively secured to the adjacent upper surface of the gasket 14 to hold the
guard 17 in place upon the cover 11" (col. 2, 11. 56-59). A "gas passage 20
is in communication with a space 21 between the lip 18 on the guard 17 and
the opposed side of the channel 12 in the cover 11" (col. 3, 11. 1--4; Fig. 2).
The lip (18) "provides a physical barrier against the ingress of dirt, oil, etc.,
into the position of the filter strip 16 and also forms an egress passage for
gas passing through [the apertures ( 13) and openings ( 15) to] the filter 16"
(col. 3, 11. 8-11; Fig. 2).
Gelting discloses a manifold for providing air flow to and from a fuel
cell stack (col. 2, 11. 13-30). The manifold has a cap (9) including two
chambers (52, 54) which provide, respectively, communication with all air
inlet passages (32) and outlet passages (34) (col. 2, 11. 64--70; Fig. 3). "Each
of the chambers 52 and 56 [sic, 54] is connected externally as by an inlet
spigot 60 and an outlet spigot 62" (col. 3, 11. 2--4) such that "each inlet
3
Appeal2014-003910
Application 11/597 ,066
port 32 of all of the parallel and series connected U-paths for the flow of air
feeds from a common plenum chamber 52 in the cap for the cell stack"
(col. 3, 11. 5-8; Fig. 3) and "all of the outlets 34 discharge into a common
plenum chamber 54 in the same cap" (col. 3, 11. 8-9).
The Examiner argues that "it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the
spigot of Gelting, in the aperture/manifold of Badger, in order to effectively
guide reactant gases to and from electrochemical cell" (Ans. 3).
That argument is not well taken because unlike Gelting' s fuel cell,
gases are not guided to Badger's automotive type storage battery.
The Examiner asserts that "[t]he skilled artisan recognizes that spigots
are used [to] direct fluid flow" (Ans. 3), "[a] spigot may be used to increase
the rate at which excessive gas is expelled from the device" (Ans. 10),
"providing multiple venting structures is well known in the art to assist
discharging gas from batteries" (Ans. 10-11 ), and "[ m ]ultiple scores,
apertures and venting structures are commonly used to increase the
efficiency of pressure relief' (Ans. 11).
The Appellants acknowledge that spigots for evacuating gases from
sealed lead acid batteries are conventional (Spec. i-fi-13--4). To establish that
including Gelting's spigot in Badger's battery would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner must show that the
prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an
apparent reason to do so. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of an invention
comprising a combination of known elements requires "an apparent reason
4
Appeal2014-003910
Application 11/597 ,066
to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed"). The Examiner,
however, has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered Badger's gas evacuation
technique to be inadequate such that an additional gas evacuation device
such as a spigot is required or that, regardless of Badger's disclosure that a
desirable feature of Badger's gas evacuation technique is that it presents a
pleasing appearance without external obstructions or protrusions other than
the positive and negative terminals (col. 1, 11. 59---63; col. 2, 11. 26-30), one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to place a spigot on Badger's
battery.
The Examiner argues that Gelting' s spigot would not be an external
obstruction on Badger's battery because the spigot does not obstruct gas
flow but, rather, provides a passageway for gas (Ans. 11 ).
By "obstructions," Badger means protruding obstructions which
detract from the battery's pleasing appearance, not obstructions to gas flow
(col. 1, 11. 59---63; col. 2, 11. 26-30).
Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie of obviousness
of the Appellants' claimed invention.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-10, 15, 16 and 18
over Badger in view of Gelting and claims 11 and 12 over Badger in view of
Gelting and Provencher are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5