Jonathan Lohr et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 22, 2019

14689333 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2019)

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.
14/689,333 04/17/2015 Jonathan LOHR 83519775 9498
28395 7590 08/22/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
O DONNELL, LUCAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2019 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 JONATHAN LOHR and HYUNG MIN BAEK
____________________

Appeal 2018-009016
Application 14/689,333
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final rejection of claims 1–17 and 19–21. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed April 17, 2015 (“Spec.”);
the Final Office Action dated December 7, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed April 12, 2018 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated July
23, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed September 21, 2018 (“Reply
Br.”).
2 Appellant is the applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, identified as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-009016
Application 14/689,333

2
The claims are directed to traction-battery assemblies, which act as an
energy source for battery-electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. Claims 1, 5,
6, and 15, which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, illustrate the claimed subject matter with disputed terms
emphasized:
1. A traction-battery assembly comprising:
a retention structure including a top, a bottom, and a
separator cooperating to define opposing openings on opposite
sides of the separator;
first and second arrays received in the opposing
openings, respectively, with terminal sides of the arrays facing
the separator and the top and bottom extending over the arrays;
and
first and second heat exchangers attached to opposing
major sides of the separator and engaging the arrays.
5. The assembly of claim 1 further comprising a third heat
exchanger attached to the same opposing major side as the first
heat exchanger as the first heat exchanger, and a fourth heat
exchanger attached to the same opposing major side as the
second heat exchanger, wherein the third heat exchanger
engages with the terminal side of the first array, and the fourth
heat exchanger engages with the terminal side of the second
array.
6. The assembly of claim 5 wherein the first array includes
a plurality of cell each have a vent located on the terminal side
of the first array, and the first and third heat exchangers are
spaced apart and cooperate with the separator to define a
vent channel and the vents open into the vent channel.
15. A traction-battery assembly comprising:
a pair of cells each including a terminal side having at
least one terminal, the cells being arranged with the terminal
sides spaced apart and facing each other; and
Appeal 2018-009016
Application 14/689,333

3
a U-shaped heat exchanger disposed between the cells
and touching each of the terminal sides.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
AOKI US 2012/0028099 A1 Feb. 2, 2012
Biedert et al.
(“Biedert”)
WO 2014/029566 A1 Feb. 27, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the following
rejections: (1) claims 1–5, 8, 9, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated over AOKI; and (2) claims 6, 7, 10–12, 15–17, and 19–21 under
35 U.S.C § 103 as obvious over AOKI in view of Biedert. Final Act. 4–14;
Appeal Br. 3–11.
OPINION
Our decision in the appeal turns on whether the prior art discloses the
claimed “heat exchanger” limitation. See Appeal Br., Claims App. 1, 2–3, 4.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that AOKI’s electric
storage module discloses each limitation of the traction-battery recited in
independent claims 1 and 8, including the requisite heat exchangers. Final
Act. 5, 7.
Appellant argues that AOKI does not disclose the claimed heat
exchangers. Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 2–4.
Appeal 2018-009016
Application 14/689,333

4
The Examiner finds that AOKI’s thermally conductive members 163
disclose the claimed first and second heat exchangers recited in claim 1
because these members engage arrays and are attached to opposing major
sides of the separator. Final Act. 5. Likewise, the Examiner similarly finds
that that the “heat exchanger” of claim 8 “includes . . . the thermally
conductive members 16[,] which are on an inboard wall of the receiving
portions on opposite sides of the structure as claimed.” Id. at 7 (citing AOKI
Fig. 29).
AOKI’s Figure 29 is reproduced below:

Figure 29 is a perspective view showing a battery module according
to an embodiment of AOKI’s invention. See AOKI ¶ 52. The elements

3 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, labels to elements are present in bold
font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
Appeal 2018-009016
Application 14/689,333

5
shown in Figure 29 are a stage of cylindrical battery cells 11, thermally
conductive members 16, cooling plate 15F, recessed portions 64, and bus
bar 26. Id. ¶¶ 140–48.
The Examiner finds that AOKI’s Figure 29 “illustrates a plurality of
‘heat exchangers’” as recited in dependent claim 5 “on each side of the main
portion of the cooling plate 15F[,] which includes a variety of projections for
mounting cells of the array therein and conductive members 16.” Ans. 7
(emphasis added). The Examiner further finds that Figure 29 “illustrates
three [conductive members 16] on each side of the retention structure
including a first, second third and fourth heat exchanger as claimed.” Id.
We are not persuaded by these findings.
The findings that thermally conductive members 16 disclose the
claimed heat exchangers require us to determine the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the limitation. We give claims their broadest reasonable
scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must be
read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. “Heat exchanger” is
not found in the Specification. “Heat exchanger,” without any special
meaning conferred on the term by the Specification, means “a device that is
used to transfer thermal energy (enthalpy) between two or more fluids,
between a solid surface and a fluid, or between solid particulates and a fluid,
at different temperatures and in thermal contact.”4

4 See Shah, R. K. & Sekulić, D. P., Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger
Design, (2003), John Wiley & Sons (retrieved from
https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpFHED0004/fundamentals-heat-
exchanger/fundamentals-heat-exchanger (last visited August 12, 2019)).
Appeal 2018-009016
Application 14/689,333

6
The Specification’s description of heat exchanger embodiments
comport with what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
disputed limitation to mean. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 28 (describing that “[t]he
retention structure 74 may include at least one cooling port 116 that is in
fluid communication with one of the thermal plates 108.”) and Figs. 4–6
(emphasis added).
According to the Examiner, AOKI’s “thermal plates transfer, or
exchange, heat from one component of the system to another and thus are
‘heat exchangers.’” Ans. 13.
The Examiner’s interpretation, however, is unreasonably broad
because it does not account for whether a component, which is in thermal
contact with a fluid, functions to transfer thermal energy to/from this fluid.
We agree with Appellant that AOKI’s “conductive members 16 do not
transfer heat between a solid object and a fluid, or between two or more
fluids.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added). Our review of AOKI finds that the
solid surfaces of thermally conductive members 16 are in thermal contact
with the solid surfaces of both cooling plate 15F and cells 11. See Spec.
¶¶ 140–48, and Fig. 29. Thus, the Examiner erred by finding that “the
thermal plates of AOKI ‘transfer heat between a solid object and a fluid.’”
Ans. 12. Therefore, AOKI does not disclose the limitation.
Even assuming that AOKI discloses the claimed heat exchanger,
Appellant argues that AOKI is not combinable with Biedert to render claims
6 and 15 obvious. Appeal Br. 7, 10.
The Examiner finds that AOKI fails to teach or suggest the limitations
recited in claim 6, which depends on claim 5. Final Act. 9. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that AOKI
Appeal 2018-009016
Application 14/689,333

7
is silent with respect to the first array including a plurality of
cells each having a vent located on the terminal side of the first
array, the first and third heat exchangers spaced apart and
cooperate with the separator to define a vent channel and the
vents open into the vent channel.
Id.
The Examiner, however, relies on Biedert for disclosing
a battery array having thermal plates on an end of each battery
cell in the array, and a vent on each cell between thermal plates
on the end of each battery cell in the array, and a heat
exchanger disposed on the array such that a channel is formed
between the two heat exchangers forming the [U]-shaped
cooling system.
Id. (citing Biedert Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to
have modified AOKI to comprise the heat exchangers and
cooling system of B[iedert] and the vents on each battery cell as
in B[iedert], such that the heat exchangers of B[iedert] were
placed on thermally conductive plates of AOIKI [sic] and the
vent was formed between thermally conductive plates on the
surface of the cells of AOKI that face the retention structure of
AOKI, and the vents on the cells of AOKI feed vented fluid
into the channel formed between the heat exchangers as taught
by B[iedert].
Final Act. 9–10 (emphasis added). The Examiner rejects independent claim
15 based on these same findings and conclusions. Id. at 12.
Appellant persuasively argues that the Examiner reversibly errs in
concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified AOKI
to comprise Biedert’s heat exchangers, cooling system, and the vents on
each battery cell. See Final Act. 9; Appeal Br. 7–11; and Reply Br. 4–5. We
are provided no explanation of why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
Appeal 2018-009016
Application 14/689,333

8
been motivated to combine Biedert’s teachings with AOKI’s, but told that “a
motivation was still provided—to vent gases from the cells and feed the
vented gas into the channel formed by the U-shaped heat exchanger.” Ans.
14. On this record, the Examiner has not made any findings that the applied
prior art teaches or suggests that such a modification would have been
beneficial. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“[T]he [PTO] must make the necessary findings and have an adequate
‘evidentiary basis for its findings.’”). The Examiner’s explanation,
moreover, falls short of the requirements for supporting an obviousness
rejection. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections
on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–5, 8, 9, 13, and 14 as
anticipated over AOKI. The rejection of claims 6, 7, 10–12, 15–17, and 19–
21 as obvious over AOKI in view of Biedert rely on the same erroneous
findings and flawed reasoning, and we do not sustain the rejection.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1–17 and 19–21 are reversed.
REVERSED