Oliver Gross et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 22, 201914574572 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation