KOREA ELECTRIC TERMINAL CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2021

2020001058 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2021)

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.
14/981,318 12/28/2015 Ja-Min KIM PK1141178 5145
105857 7590 04/21/2021
NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC
3251 OLD LEE HIGHWAY
SUITE 500
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
EXAMINER
AKHTAR, KIRAN QURAISHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2021 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):
docket@nkllaw.com
skim@nkllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
Ex parte JA-MIN KIM and KI-TAEK KIM
_______________
Appeal 2020-001058
Application 14/981,318
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 13–15, and 17 of Application

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Dec. 28, 2015 (“Spec.”)
of Application 14/981,318 (“the ’981 Application”); the Final Office Action
dated Dec. 31, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 19, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer dated Sept. 17, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appellant did not file a Reply Brief.
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies KOREA ELECTRIC TERMINAL CO., LTD. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001058
Application 14/981,318
2
14/981,318. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter of the ’318 Application relates to a battery block
that is mounted to a vehicle battery. Spec. 1, ll. 12–14.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’318 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
1. A battery block for a vehicle, the battery block
comprising:
a main body provided with an installation space therein
for receiving components; and
an upper casing mounted to an upper part of the main
body, a lower surface of the main body mounted to an upper
part of a vehicle battery,
wherein the main body includes a longitudinal side wall
disposed along a longitudinal direction of the main body,
wherein the longitudinal side wall includes:
a longitudinal side plate;
a first, a second and a third vertical transverse
plates each crossing the longitudinal side plate at a first, a
second and a third locations thereof;
a first horizontal plate crossing the longitudinal
side plate, thereby extending inwardly and outwardly
from the longitudinal side plate, and having one end
connected to the first vertical transverse plate and another
end connected to the second vertical transverse plate; and
a second horizontal plate crossing the longitudinal
side plate, thereby extending inwardly and outwardly
from the longitudinal side plate, and having one end
connected to the second vertical transverse plate and
Appeal 2020-001058
Application 14/981,318
3
another end connected to the third vertical transverse
plate,
wherein a first height of the longitudinal side plate,
defined from an upper end of the longitudinal side plate
to an upper surface of the first horizontal plate, is shorter
than a second height of the longitudinal side plate,
defined from the upper end of the longitudinal side plate
to an upper surface of the second horizontal plate.
Appeal Br. 21–23 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Umemoto et al.
(“Umemoto”)
US 6,178,106 B1 Jan. 23, 2001
Chun US 2006/0216592 A1 Sept. 28, 2006
Shimoyama US 2008/0124618 A1 May 29, 2008
Baek et al.
(“Baek”)
US 2009/0155631 A1 June 18, 2009
Hsiao et al.
(“Hsiao”)
US 2013/0011718 A1 Jan. 10, 2013
Kawatani et al.
(“Kawatani”)
US 2013/0288097 A1 Oct. 31, 2013
Kinoshita et al.
(“Kinoshita”)3
WO 2013/069525 A1 May 16, 2013
Xiaomeng4 CN201887094U June 29, 2011

3 The Examiner relies on US 2014/0315441 as an English language
equivalent of Kinoshita, to which Appellant does not object. Final Act. 11.
4 The Examiner relies on a machine translation of Xiaomeng’s Abstract, to
which Appellant does not object. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-001058
Application 14/981,318
4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 1035
1. Claim 1 over Xiaomeng in view of Hsiao and Kawatani. Final
Act. 2–6; Ans. 3–5.
2. Claims 3 and 4 over Xiaomeng in view of Hsiao and Kawatani,
and further in view of Umemoto. Final Act. 6–9; Ans. 6–8.
3. Claims 5, 6, and 9 over Xiaomeng in view of Hsiao, Kawatani, and
Umemoto, and further in view of Shimoyama. Final Act. 9–11;
Ans. 8–9.
4. Claim 7 over Xiaomeng in view of Hsiao, Kawatani, Umemoto,
and further in view of Kinoshita. Final Act. 11–13; Ans. 9–10.
5. Claim 8 over Xiaomeng in view of Hsiao, Kawatani, Umemoto,
Kinoshita, and further in view of Baek. Final Act. 13; Ans. 11.
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are

5 Because this application was filed after the March 16, 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
Appeal 2020-001058
Application 14/981,318
5
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections.
We address the rejection of the sole independent claim, claim 1.
Because we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, the rejections of the
dependent claims likewise fail.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Xiaomeng teaches the
limitations of claim 1 except does not teach, “a battery block for a vehicle”
or “an inside of the upper casing mounted to an upper part of a vehicle
battery.” Final Act. 2–5. For these limitations, the Examiner relies on Hsiao
for teaching a battery module for vehicles, and Kawatani for teaching an
inside of the upper casing mounted to an upper part of a vehicle battery. Id.
at 4, 5. The Examiner finds that Xiaomeng’s Figure 1 discloses “first[,]
second[,] and third vertical plates intersecting/meeting the longitudinal side
plate, therefore the claimed limitation of the first, second[,] and third vertical
transverse plates each crossing the longitudinal side plate is met.” Ans. 12.
Xiaomeng’s Figure 1 as annotated by the Examiner is reproduced
below from the Final Office Action:
Appeal 2020-001058
Application 14/981,318
6

Final Act. 4. In the annotated version of Xiaomeng’s Figure 1, showing the
battery cover, the Examiner identifies portions of the depicted structure that
he finds read on the longitudinal slide plate vertical transverse plates, and
horizontal plates. Id.
Appellant argues, intra alia, that Xiaomeng does not teach a first, a
second, and a third vertical transverse plate, each of which cross the
longitudinal side plate at a first, a second, and a third location. Appeal
Br. 10. According to Appellant, to cross the longitudinal side plate as
recited in independent claim 1, the vertical transverse plates must extend
through the longitudinal side plate. Id. Appellant provides an annotated
version of Figure 3 of the ’318 Application to illustrate the argument:
Appeal 2020-001058
Application 14/981,318
7

Id. at 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation that “cross” means
a plate that merely meets, or is connected to, another plate is unreasonable
under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Id.
During prosecution, we give an application’s 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.
Applying this standard to claim 1 of the ’318 Application, we agree
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Xiaomeng’s
Figure 1 to disclose vertical transverse plates crossing a longitudinal side
plate as disclosed in the application. Xiaomeng’s Figure 1 shows what the
Examiner finds to be vertical transverse plates meeting or touching the
alleged longitudinal plates, but not passing from one side of the longitudinal
plates to another side, i.e., not “crossing.”
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Xiaomeng in view of
Hsiao, Kawatani, and Umemoto. We likewise do not sustain the rejections
of claims 3–9 that depend from claim 1.
Appeal 2020-001058
Application 14/981,318
8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Xiaomeng, Hsiao, Kawatani 1
3, 4 103 Xiaomeng, Hsiao, Kawatani, Umemoto 3, 4
5, 6, 9 103
Xiaomeng, Hsiao,
Kawatani, Umemoto,
Shimoyama
5, 6, 9
7 103
Xiaomeng, Hsiao,
Kawatani, Umemoto,
Kinoshita
7
8 103
Xiaomeng, Hsiao,
Kawatani, Umemoto,
Kinoshita, Baek
8
Overall
Outcome 1, 3–9
REVERSED