Ex Parte PauleserDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201814383193 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/383,193 09/05/2014 20151 7590 05/31/2018 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC HENRY M FEIEREISEN 708 THIRD A VENUE SUITE 1501 NEW YORK, NY 10017 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thomas Pauleser 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. PAULESER 7724 EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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): INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS P AULESER Appeal2017-004771 Application 14/3 83, 193 1 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CHRISTOPHERL. OGDEN, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is AUDI AG. (App. Br. 2). Appeal2017-004771 Application 14/3 83, 193 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 11-13, 17, and 19-26. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral arguments were heard in this appeal on May 16, 2018. In accordance with 3 7 CPR § 41.4 7 ( e )( 1 ), Appellant may only present during oral argument those arguments that have been relied upon in the brief or reply brief. Therefore, any new arguments (i.e., arguments not raised in the brief or reply brief) made during oral argument will not be considered in our decision. We AFFIRM. Appellant's invention is directed to a battery and method of connecting a plurality of battery cells using at least one connecting element which connects an electric pole of a first battery cell with the electric poles of further battery cells (Spec. in). Claim 11 is illustrative: 11. A battery, comprising: a plurality of battery cells having each an electric pole provided with a base portion extending out from each of the battery cells and having a planar topside and a pin-shaped component extending out from the base portion; and at least one connecting element having plural individual wires which are compacted in evenly spaced-apart locations to define cuboid attachment zones, each said attachment zone having a planar underside and a through opening, wherein the pin-shaped component of each of the electric poles extends through the through opening of a respective one of the attachment zones composed of compacted plural individual wires, wherein the pin-shaped component of each of the electric poles is circumferentially attached to the attachment zone in the through opening by a circumferential material joint provided between an outer circumferential surface of the pin-shaped component of the electric pole and a wall of the through opening of the attachment zone, and wherein the base portion of each of the electric poles is also attached to the attachment zone by a planar material joint 2 Appeal2017-004771 Application 14/3 83, 193 provided between the planar topside of the base portion of the electric pole and the planar underside of the attachment zone, so that the electric poles of the plurality of battery cells are connectable to one another by the connecting element via the attachment zones, wherein a distance between adjacent attachment zones corresponds to a distance between adjacent electric poles of the battery cells. (App. Br. 9). Appellant appeals the following rejection: Claims 11-13, 17, and 19-- 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Lietz (US 2012/0088143 Al, pub.: April 12, 2012) in view of Tanaka (US 5,804,770, dated: September 8, 1998). The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 11-13, 17, and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement (Ans. 2). Appellant does not dispute the merits of this rejection (App. Br. generally). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner's rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Appellant's arguments focus on the subject matter common to independent claims 11 and 22 only (App. Br. 4---6). We select claim 11 as representative of the group. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Lietz teaches the limitations of claim 11, except for the claim limitation that the base portion of each of the electric poles is also attached to the attachment zone by a planar material joint provided between the planar topside of the base portion of the electric pole and the planar underside of the attachment zone (Final Act. 4--5). The Examiner finds that Tanaka teaches a battery connection where each of the 3 Appeal2017-004771 Application 14/3 83, 193 electric poles has a base portion extending out of the battery cells where the underside of an attachment zone contacts the base portion (Final Act. 5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Lietz's connecting element to include a base portion extending out from each of the battery cells and having a planar topside contact area and a pin-shaped component along with the other limitations recited in claim 11 in order to use a simple structure that maintains a secure connection between the attachment zone and the electric poles (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Lietz as modified by Tanaka does not expressly teach a planar material joint provided between the planar topside of the base portion of the electric pole and the planar underside of the attachment zone (Final Act. 6). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Leitz/Tanaka's battery module to include a planar material joint provided between the planar topside of the base portion of the electric pole and the planar underside of the attachment zone because the location of the welded joint between the attachment zone and the base portion is an obvious matter of design choice (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Appellant does not allege any criticality of the location of the welds and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that placing the welded joint between the underside contact area of the attachment zone and the planar topside contact area of the base portion would further strengthen the connection between attachment zone and the electric pole (Final Act. 7). Appellant argues that Lietz does not disclose and does not suggest the battery cells having electric poles provided with base portions extending out from the battery cells and having pin-shaped components extending out from 4 Appeal2017-004771 Application 14/3 83, 193 the base portions through the through openings of the attachment zones composed of compacted plural individual wires and circumferentially connected in the openings with the attachment zones. (App. Br. 5). Appellant argues that Lietz does not teach forming a circumferential connection between the electric pole and a wall of the through opening formed in the attachment zone (App. Br. 5). Appellant contends that Lietz at paragraphs 22 and 49 does not teach that the laser welding is performed around the circumference where the pin and through opening of the attachment zone meet (App. Br. 5). The Examiner finds that Lietz teaches a connecting element 6 made from a plurality of strands compacted in compacting regions (Final Act. 4). Lietz also teaches in paragraphs 22 and 49 that the battery pole is guided coaxially to the vent openings of the battery cell connectors and can be easily welded. The Examiner finds that welding the coaxially arranged battery pole and the connector would result in a circumferentially welded battery pole/connector (Final Act. 4--5). The Examiner reasonably finds that coaxially disposing and laser welding the battery pole in the vent opening would have included circumferentially welding the battery pole to the connector. Appellant does not respond to this finding of the Examiner. Indeed if the battery pole shares the same axis as the vent opening and is nested within it as taught by Leitz, then the laser welding of the coaxially disposed parts would include welding where the coaxially parts touch (i.e., at their circumference). Contrary to Appellant's argument, we find that Lietz's teachings would have suggested the circumferential weld recited in claim 11. 5 Appeal2017-004771 Application 14/3 83, 193 Appellant argues that Tanaka fails to teach a battery post that extends through an opening of an attachment zone composed of compacted plural individual wires (App. Br. 6). Appellant argues that Tanaka does not teach a circumferential attachment of the connector to the battery post (App. Br. 6). Appellant argues that Tanaka does not teach to form a joint between the base portion of the electric poles and the planar underside of the attachment zone (App. Br. 7). Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to provide simultaneously a circumferential material joint around the pin- shaped component in the opening and a planar material joint on the topside of the base portion (App. Br. 7). Appellant's arguments attack the references individually instead of addressing what the combined teachings would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Contrary to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner relies on Leitz to teach the circumferential welding of the battery pole to the connector (Final Act. 4--5). Tanaka is relied upon to teach the battery having a base portion extending out from each of the batteries and having a top side contact area and a battery post extending from the base, and connection members that have through openings for receiving a pin shaped component of the electric poles, and a planar underside contact area of the attachment zone is connected with the planar topside contact area of the base portion (Final Act. 5-6). The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to provide Lietz's battery connector as modified by Tanaka with a connection between the planar underside of the attachment zone and the base of the battery as on obvious design choice that provides a secure connection in a simple manner (Final Act. 6). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have 6 Appeal2017-004771 Application 14/3 83, 193 made the connection between the planar underside of the attachment zone and the base of the battery to provide a secure connection in a simple manner (App. Br. generally). On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection over Lietz in view of Tanaka. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation