Ex Parte Widhalm

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

13353746 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017)

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.
13/353,746 01/19/2012 Humi Widhalm 83196781 6360
28395 7590 12/04/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER LYLES-IRVING, CARMEN V
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUMI WIDHALM
Appeal 2017-001544
Application 13/3 53,7461
Technology Center 1700
Before MARKNAGUMO, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
maintained rejection of claims 1-7, 20, 22, 23, and 29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the claims on appeal “relates to material and
method for joining battery cell terminals and interconnector busbars.”
1 Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, a subsidiary of Ford Motor
Company, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001544
Application 13/353,746
Specification filed January 19, 2012 (“Spec.”), ^ 1. Independent claims 1,
20, and 29 are each directed to battery cell modules that include a battery
cell terminal, a busbar, and “a metallurgical bond between an entire face-to-
face interface of the terminal and the busbar.” Appeal Brief filed June 27,
2016 (“Appeal Br.”), 7.
Independent claim 1 is representative
1. A battery cell module comprising:
a battery cell terminal including a base layer and an outer
layer contacting the base layer; and
a busbar including a busbar substrate; and
a layer of a metallurgical bond between an entire face-
to-face contacting interface of the outer layer and the busbar
substrate, wherein the battery cell terminal outer layer has a
melting temperature lower than a melting temperature of the
battery cell terminal base layer or busbar substrate.
Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix, Appx. 1).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph as being indefinite.2 Final Office Action issued February
1, 2016 (“Final Act.”), 3^1; Ans. 4-5.
Claims 1-7, 20, 22, 23, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Suzuki3 in view of Miura.4
2 While not repeated in the Answer (see generally Ans.), the rejections of
claims 1, 2, 4-7, 22, and 23 for indefmiteness set forth in the Final Office
Action are not identified as withdrawn (Ans. 16).
3 Suzuki, US 2010/0173189 Al, published July 8, 2010.
4 Miura, US 2005/0123784 Al, published June 9, 2005.
2
Appeal 2017-001544
Application 13/353,746
DISCUSSION5
We have reviewed the maintained grounds of rejection set forth by the
Examiner, Appellant’s arguments, and the Examiner’s response. On this
record, we reverse the indefiniteness rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 22, and
23, summarily affirm the indefiniteness rejections of claims 3 and 20, and
affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1-7, 20, 22, 23, and 29. We add
the following.
Indefiniteness Rejections
The Examiner determines that there is insufficient antecedent basis for
the limitations “the battery cell terminal outer layer” and “the battery cell
terminal base layer” in claim 1 (and other claims dependent thereon).
Appellant contends, correctly, that the recitation of “a battery cell
terminal including a base layer and an outer layer” constitutes sufficient
antecedent basis for both “the battery cell terminal outer layer” and “the
battery cell terminal base layer.” Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner further determines that the recitation of “a battery cell
terminal intermediate layer” in claim 3 renders the claim indefinite because
it is unclear what layer it refers to in light of the recitation of “an
intermediate layer of a metal Ml between the battery cell terminal base layer
and the battery cell terminal outer layer” in claim 2, from which claim 3
depends. Final Act. 4.
5 In this discussion, we refer to the Specification, the Final Office Action
dated February 1, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s
Answer dated October 21, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
November 7, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2017-001544
Application 13/353,746
Appellant does not contest the rejection, but rather maintains they
“will correct this error with an appropriate amendment after the merits of
§103 rejections are dealt with.” Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner further determines that the recitation of “and the battery
cell terminal to the interconnector busbar via a metallurgical bond provided
between the entire face-to-face interface of Ml and M2” in claim 20 renders
the claim indefinite because it “is unclear . . . how the battery cell terminal
and the interconnector busbar are related.” Final Act. 4.
“[A]cknowledg[ing] the lack of connection between the battery cell
terminal and the interconnector busbar via the metallurgical bond,”
Appellant again does not contest the rejection, but rather maintains a
willingness to amend the claim. Appeal Br. 6.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the indefmiteness rejections of
claims 3 and 20 that Appellant does not contest, but reverse the
indefmiteness rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 22, and 23.
Obviousness Rejection over Suzuki in view of Miura
The Examiner relies on Suzuki for its disclosure of a secondary
battery module comprising a battery cell terminal (Fig. 2, 3a, and 3b) and a
busbar (Fig. 2, 7a, and 7b). Ans. 5 (citing Suzuki, Figs. 1-2). The Examiner
further relies on paragraph 29 of Suzuki for teaching methods for joining
electrode terminals and busbars, including, inter alia, spot welding, brazing,
and soldering. Ans. 7, 11, 15.
The Examiner relies on Miura for, inter alia, its disclosure of “a
terminal for use in electrical and electronic products comprising a terminal
conductive base made of a copper or a copper alloy” and having additional
metal alloy layers corresponding to the outer layer (claim 1), first coating of
4
Appeal 2017-001544
Application 13/353,746
metal Ml and second coating of metal M2 (claim 20), and the outer layer
and intermediate layer (claim 29). Ans. 6-7, 12-15; Miura 36-37. The
Examiner further relies on Miura for teaching that use of its additional metal
alloy layers improves contact reliability. Ans. 6-7, 12-13, 15.
In determining that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention, armed with the knowledge of the cited art, would have arrived at
the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
Examiner determines, inter alia, that the degree of metallurgical bond
between the battery cell terminal and busbar substrate (claims 1, 29), or first
coating of Ml and second coating of metal M2 (claim 20), depends upon
“the amount [of] attachment desired, the durability or stability of the
connection required, etc.” (Ans. 7, 13, 15). As explained by the Examiner,
“[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
appreciate that, in order to increase the connection/metallurgical bond . . .
the amount of metal used . . . and/or the area that is soldered or brazed/spot-
welded must be increased” and “the amount of the interface of the terminal
and the busbar that is covered by the metallurgical bond is a result-effective
variable” of the “connection/metallurgical bond.” Ans. 19. The Examiner
further concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art “to optimize the metallurgical bond ... to maximize the bond
(attachment) between the components barring evidence of criticality or
unexpected results.” Ans. 19-20.
Appellant contends that the cited methods of spot welding produces
only “spots” of weld and “brazing and soldering” introduce a “filler metal”
and only join “a ‘spot’ or ‘seam/edge’ of two metal surfaces.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant’s arguments focus on the requirement for bonding over the entire
5
Appeal 2017-001544
Application 13/353,746
face-to-face interface. Appeal Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2. First, Appellant argues
that “the Examiner neither takes official notice nor cites to a prior art
reference in arguing that brazing or soldering . . . may result in a
metallurgical bond between the entire face-to-face contacting interface” and
that “[i]f the filler metal... is not provided at the entire face-to-face
interface,” the required bond is not formed. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Spec. ^ 32).
Second, as to reasoning that the size of areas to connect can be reduced to
facilitate complete metallurgical bonding, Appellant argues “the Examiner
points to no supporting evidence to support the argument that the filler
material would somehow be provided along the entire face-to-face
interface.” Appeal Br. 8. Third, Appellant contends one of skill in the art
would have no reason to shrink the size of busbar or battery cell terminal to
such a smaller size that the relied on brazing or soldering would “provide a
bond across the entire face-to-face contacting interface.” Appeal Br. 8
(citing Spec. ^ 28). Finally, Appellant contends that “[o]ne does not
accomplish brazing or soldering at the middle or inner regions of the
contacting faces of the two metal parts (i.e., ‘at the entire face-to-face
interface.’). . . because brazing and soldering only serves to introduce an
outside metal along the accessible edges of the terminal and the busbar.”
Reply Br. 2.
On this record, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of
reversible error because they fail to address the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning grounded on the amount of interface covered by the metallurgical
bond being a result effective variable of the connection leading the skilled
artisan to use of a metallurgical bond over the entire face-to-face interface.
As to the various contentions that brazing or soldering only joins objects
6
Appeal 2017-001544
Application 13/353,746
“around the edges,” Appellant proffers no persuasive evidence that brazing
or soldering is so limited or that it cannot be accomplished over the entire
face-to-face interface. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
(“Attorney’s argument. . . cannot take the place of evidence.”). Further,
Appellant’s argument fails to “take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” in overcoming
the difficulties within their level of skill. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007).
As to Appellant’s contention that brazing or soldering introduces a
filler metal (Appeal Br. 7 (citing Spec. 29, 32)), we find in it no cogent
argument persuasive of reversible error.
First, we are neither directed to, nor do we discern, any particular
definition of “metallurgical bond” in the Specification that excludes a
brazing or soldering “filler metal.” See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br. We
otherwise discern no such requirement in the claims, particularly, where
claim 1 recites “a layer of metallurgical bond between an entire face-to-face
interface” (emphasis added). See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496
F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]e look to the specification to see if it
provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation ... as applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a
broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant
or patentee.”). Second, Appellant fails to explain how the structure
including a “filler layer” differs from that claimed in which the battery cell
terminal and busbar are joined together. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply
Br. We find Appellant’s contention, accordingly, insufficient to establish
reversible error. Cf. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
7
Appeal 2017-001544
Application 13/353,746
(“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art. Because Lovin did not provide such arguments,
the Board did not err in refusing to separately address claims 2-15, 17-24,
and 31-34.”). Further, it is not the function of this Board to examine claims
in greater detail than argued by an Appellant. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (It is not the function of [the
Federal Circuit] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”).
On balance, the record of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 22, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
for indefiniteness is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 20, 22, 23, and 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness 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).
AFFIRMED
8