Oliver Gross et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 22, 2019

14574572 - (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.
14/574,572 12/18/2014 Oliver Gross 709619US1 9033
24938 7590 08/22/2019
FCA US LLC
CIMS 483-02-19
800 CHRYSLER DR EAST
AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-2757
EXAMINER
THAPA, SAILESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
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):
chris.davenport@fcagroup.com
michelle.madak@fcagroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OLIVER GROSS, DAN PANNUNZIO, STEVEN L. CLARK, and
ROGER CORTINA

____________

Appeal 2018-0075561
Application 14/574,572
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LILAN REN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This decides an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the February
10, 2017 final rejection of claims 1–12, and 14–16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant discloses the real party in interest is FCA US LLC. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-007556
Application 14/574,572

2
Appellant’s invention is directed generally to a battery pack for use
with a hybrid vehicle wherein the battery pack includes a housing and an
active thermal management system contained within the housing. (Spec. ¶
3). Claim 1, the only independent claim, illustrates the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced from the Claim Appendix to the Appeal Brief
below:
1. A battery pack for use with a hybrid vehicle, the battery
pack comprising:
a housing;
a plurality of battery cells contained within the housing, the
plurality of battery cells being divided into first and second sets
of battery cells;
a direct current to direct current (DC-DC) converter conta1ned
within the housing; and
an active them1al management system contained within the
housing, the active thermal management system including:
a single thermal channel arranged through a center portion of
the battery pack with the first set of battery cells arranged on a
first side of the thermal channel and the second set of battery
cells arranged on an opposing second side of the thermal
channel, the thermal channel being configured to provide fluid
communication between an interior of the housing of the
battery pack and an exterior of the housing of the battery pack;
a set of thermoelectric devices (TEDs) configured to transfer
heat from the plurality of battery cells and the DC-DC converter
to the thermal channel;
an insulator arranged between each of the first and second sets
of battery cells and the thermal channel and between the DC-
DC converter and the thermal channel;
Appeal 2018-007556
Application 14/574,572

3
a device configured to control fluid flow via the thermal
channel; and
a controller configured to contrn1 the device to actively control
heat transfer from the interior of the housing of the battery pack
to the exterior of the housing of the battery pack to maintain the
battery pack al a desired temperature.
The following rejection is presented for our review:
In the Final Office Action dated February 10, 2017, claims 1, 6, 11–
12, and 14–16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Johnston (US 2016/0107508 A1, published April 21, 2016) in view of
Quisenberry (US 2012/0148881 A1, published June 14, 2012) and claims 2–
5 and 7–10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l03 as unpatentable over
Johnston and Quisenberry further in view of one of Yang (US 2008/0311466
A1, published Dec. 18, 2009), Wu (US 2006/0078786 A1, published April
13, 2006), and Chorian (US 2016/0064783 A1, published Mar. 3, 2016).
The complete statement of the rejection on appeal appear in the Final
Office Action. (Final Act. 2–11).

OPINION

The dispositive issue on appeal is:
Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Johnston
and Quisenberry describe or suggest a DC-DC converter and active thermal
management system each contained within the housing as required by
independent claim 1? 2
The Examiner found Johnston teaches a multimodal vehicle thermal

2 We limit our discussion to the independent claim 1.
Appeal 2018-007556
Application 14/574,572

4
management system that differs from the claimed invention in several
respects. (Final Act. 3–4). The Examiner specifically states:
Johnston fails to teach, a housing; a plurality of battery
cells contained within the housing, the plurality of battery cells
being divided into first and second sets of battery cells; an
active thermal management system contained within the
housing, the active thermal management system including: a
single thermal channel arranged through a center portion of the
battery pack with the first set of battery cells arranged on a first
side of the thermal channel and the second set of battery cells
arranged on an opposing second side of the thermal channel, the
thermal channel being configured to provide fluid
communication between an interior of the housing of the
battery pack and an exterior of the housing of the battery pack.
(Final Act. 4).
The Examiner cites Quisenberry to address some of the distinctions
between Johnston and the claimed invention. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner
found Quisenberry teaches a system for automotive battery cooling
comprising a plurality of battery cells and a single channel active thermal
management system. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art to combine the battery cells that are divided into no
[sic number] of sets with a single thermal channel arranged
through a center porting of the batteries as taught by
Quisenberry into the thermal management system of Johnston
such that to obtain an improved thermal management system
that efficiently controls the temperature of each of the vehicle’s
thermal systems while optimizing overall vehicle operating
efficiency.
(Final Act. 5).
Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to identify where Johnston
discloses the DC-DC converter and the active thermal management system
each being contained within a housing as required by independent claim 1.
Appeal 2018-007556
Application 14/574,572

5
(App. Br. 6–7). Appellant specifically argues the DC/DC converter 515 is
not connected to the battery pack thermal control loop 505 rather it is
thermally coupled to the drive train control loop 507. (App. Br. 6).
Appellant argues Johnston does not disclose the DC/DC converter or the
thermal control loops are contained within its battery pack enclosure. (App.
Br. 7). Appellant further argues Quisenberry provides a general discussion
of a battery cooling system and therefore fails to remedy the deficiency of
Johnston. (App. Br. 7).
The Examiner in response to the Appellant’s arguments, for the first
time in the Answer, contends the frame of a vehicle is the same as the
housing required by the claimed invention. (Ans. 3).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner has the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter recited in the claims on appeal. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[The][patent] examiner bears the initial burden, on
review of the prior art or any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case
of unpatentability.”); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (explaining that while “the applicant must identify to the Board what
the examiner did wrong…the examiner retains the burden to show
invalidity”).
The Examiner has not directed us to any portion of Johnston or
Quisenberry that describes or suggests a DC-DC converter and active
thermal management system each contained within the battery pack housing
as required by independent claim 1. The Examiner in the statement of the
rejection from the Final Action fails to identify the housing in the disclosure
of Johnston or Quisenberry. The Examiner’s new interpretation presented in
Appeal 2018-007556
Application 14/574,572

6
the Answer does not directe us to a portion of the present Specification that
would support the interpretation that the frame of a vehicle is the same as the
battery pack housing comprising a plurality of battery cells, a DC-DC
converter and active thermal management system as required by independent
claim 1. Furthermore, as noted by Appellant, figure 1 of Johnston depicts
the battery pack as separate from the vehicle chassis. (Reply Br. 5).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented above. We
likewise reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims
2–12, and 14–16 because the premise of these rejections are based on the
Examiner’s unsupported determination that the combination of Johnston and
Quisenberry describes or suggests a DC-DC converter and active thermal
management system each contained within the battery pack housing as
required by independent claim 1. We need not reach the additional
references relied upon by the Examiner for these rejections because the
Examiner did not rely on them to address the deficiencies of the combination
of Johnston and Quisenberry noted above.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections of
claims 1–12 and 14–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented
by the Appellant and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12 and 14–16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

Appeal 2018-007556
Application 14/574,572

7
REVERSED