null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

15097875 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 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.
15/097,875 04/13/2016 Stephan WEILEDER 080437.68671US 1918
23911 7590 12/02/2019
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
WEI, ZHONGQING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2019 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):
edocket@crowell.com
mloren@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHAN WEILEDER, NICOLAS FLAHAUT,
MICHAEL HUBER, FLORIAN EINOEGG,
SEBASTIAN SIERING, and ANDREAS RING
Appeal 2019–003712
Application 15/097,875
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BAYERISCHE
MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003712
Application 15/097,875

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A battery module, comprising:
an array of battery cells;
a cooling apparatus having a first line and a second line,
each carrying a fluid flowing therein so as to absorb heat from
the cells of the battery module and transfer said heat to the fluid,
wherein the first line and the second line each extend
perpendicular to the cells and parallel to one another across the
array, and a flow direction of the fluid in the first line is opposite
to a flow direction of the fluid in the second line.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kelly US 2008/0299446 A1 Dec. 4, 2008
Micha DE 10 2010 025 656 A1 Jan. 5, 2012

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Micha2.

2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 14–15, and 17–18 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Micha.

2 An English machine translation is of record for Micha.
Appeal 2019-003712
Application 15/097,875

3
3. Claims 7, 8, and 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Micha, as applied to claim 5 above, and further as
evidenced by Kelly.
OPINION
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports Appellant’s position in the record. We thus reverse the Examiner’s
decision to reject the appealed claims for the reasons provided by Appellant
in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and add the following for emphasis.
The dispositive issue in this rejection involves claim interpretation of
the phrase “across the array” found within the claim recitation of “wherein
the first line and the second line each extend perpendicular to the cells and
parallel to one another across the array, and a flow direction of the fluid in
the first line is opposite to a flow direction of the fluid in the second line” of
claim 1 (similar limitations are also found in independent claims 5, 9, and
13).
It is Appellant’s position that this phrase denotes that the
claimed relationship between the lines and the cells is maintained from one
side of the array of cells to the other side. Appeal Br. 4. To illustrate,
Appellant’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-003712
Application 15/097,875

4

Appellant’s Figure 1 shows battery module 1 having a cell body 13 in
which individual cells 5 of the battery module 1 are arranged. The
individual cells 5 must be cooled to avoid overheating of the cells 5.
Cooling apparatus 2 is used to cool cells 5, and includes a first line 3 and a
second line 4. A fluid which absorbs heat energy from the cells 5 can be
carried within the first line 3 and the second line 4. The fluid is preferably
either a coolant or a refrigerant. The first line 3 and the second line 4 are
arranged parallel to one another and extend perpendicularly to the cells 5. At
the same time, the first line 3 and the second line 4 are advantageously
arranged symmetrically with respect to the cells 5. This ensures that a
constant average of the cooling capacity of the first line 3 and the second
line 4 is established at all times, thus ensuring that each cell 5 receives
optimum and uniform cooling. Spec.¶¶ [0026]–[0027]. From this
disclosure, one skilled in the art would understand that first line 3 and
second line 4 extend from one end of the battery module 1 to the other end
(“across the array”) while maintaining a perpendicular relationship to the
cells 5 and a parallel relationship to each other.
Appeal 2019-003712
Application 15/097,875

5
Appellant’s Figure 2 (reproduced below) shows an embodiment
whereby multiple battery modules 1 from Figure 1 are arranged in a series
circuit based on the counterflow principle. For this purpose, the
battery modules 1 are arranged spatially in series. All the first lines 3 are
connected to one another, as are all the second lines 4 of all the battery
modules 1. Thus, all the first lines 3 are interconnected in a series circuit
from a first battery module 6 to a last battery module 7. On the last battery
module 7, there is a connecting element 8, which connects the first line 3
and the second line 4. The first battery module 6 has a fluid inlet 11 and a
fluid outlet 12. The first line 3 is connected to the fluid inlet 11, while the
second line 4 is connected to the fluid outlet 12. Spec. ¶ [0028].

The battery system 100 shown in Figure 2 therefore is designed in
such a way that the first battery module 6 receives a fluid into the first line 3
from the fluid inlet 11, wherein the fluid then passes through all the first
lines 3 until the fluid in the last battery module 7 is transferred into the
second line 4 of the last battery module 7 by the connecting element 8. From
the last battery module 7, the fluid is passed through all the second lines 4 of
all the battery modules 1 until the fluid is discharged to the fluid outlet 12 in
the first battery module 6 through the second line 4 of the first
Appeal 2019-003712
Application 15/097,875

6
battery module 6. The fluid thus first of all passes through all the battery
modules 1 and then passes through all the battery modules 1 once again in
the opposite direction. An average in the cooling capacity is therefore
established by the fluid, this average being identical or at least virtually
identical for all the battery modules 1. This results from the fact that the first
battery module 6 has the highest cooling capacity in the entire battery
system 100 at the first line 3 but has the lowest cooling capacity in the
battery system 100 at the second line 4, for example. Spec. ¶ [0029].
From this disclosure, one skilled in the art would understand that first
line 3 and second line 4 extend from one end of the first battery module 6 to
the other end of the last battery module 7, while maintaining a perpendicular
relationship to the cells 5 and a parallel relationship to each other from end-
to-end.
As the aforementioned disclosure of the Specification indicates, an
important aspect of Appellant’s invention is to establish an average in
the cooling capacity by the fluid, this average being identical or at
least virtually identical for all the battery modules. This is accomplished by
positioning the first line 3 and the second line 4 so that the lines extend from
one end to the other end (across the array) in the manner claimed (while
maintaining a perpendicular relationship to the cells 5 and a parallel
relationship to each other across the array). We thus interpret “across the
array” as meaning extending from one end of the battery module to the other
end of the last battery module (if connected in series).
The Examiner does not interpret the claim in the manner we
discussed, supra. Ans. 7–9. For example, the Examiner states that even if
Appeal 2019-003712
Application 15/097,875

7
the first line or the second line comprises non-perpendicular sections, any
perpendicular section that exists would satisfy the claim language. Ans. 7.
It thus appears that the Examiner does not view the claim language (“across
the array”) as requiring that the pattern is maintained across the entirety of
the series of modules (from end-to-end). This interpretation ignores the
claim elements that the lines extend perpendicular to the cells and parallel to
one another, from one end of the array to the other end. Thus, we agree with
Appellant that this is not proper claim interpretation (as Appellant argues in
the Appeal Brief on pages 3–5 and on pages 1–3 of the Reply Brief). As
such, because certain elements of the claim are not properly addressed in the
rejection (because they are omitted in the Examiner’s claim interpretation)3,
we are persuaded by Appellant of error in the rejection, and reverse
Rejection 1. We also reverse Rejections 2 and 3 since the aforementioned
stated deficiencies in Rejection 1 are not remedied by the Examiner’s
position in Rejections 2 and 3 for the reasons discussed by Appellant in the
record.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.

3 It is noted that Micha’s lines are not arranged as claimed in Appellant’s
claim 1. See annotated figures from Micha on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer.
The figures therein show how the lines do not have the pattern of lines as
claimed in Appellant’s claim 1, contrary to the Examiner’s position stated
therein.
Appeal 2019-003712
Application 15/097,875

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 13,
and 16
102(a)(1) Micha 1, 4, 13,
and 16
2, 3, 5, 6, 9,
14–15, and
17–18
102(a)(1)
103
Micha 2, 3, 5, 6, 9,
14–15, and
17–18
7, 8, and
10–12
103 Micha, Kelly 7, 8, and
10–12
Overall
Outcome
1–18

REVERSED