Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2020

2020000075 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2020)

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.
15/484,630 04/11/2017 Jeffrey Matthew Haag 83795925; 67186-355PUS1 7846
46442 7590 11/25/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
NEDIALKOVA, LILIA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2020 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY MATTHEW HAAG,
EID FARHA, and LUCAS AMBER
____________

Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, 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, 7–13, and 15–26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC, which is owned by Ford Motor Company.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

2
The invention “relates generally to supporting battery structures of a
traction battery and, more particularly to supporting battery structures that
are arranged in tiers.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 13 illustrate the subject
matter claimed and is reproduced below:
1. A support assembly, comprising:
a first housing that supports at least one first battery
structure, the first housing is a tub providing an open area that
receives the at least one first battery structure;
a second housing that supports at least one second battery
structure and encloses the at least one first battery structure
within the first housing, the at least one second battery structure
disposed outside the open area;
a cover that encloses the at least one second battery
structure within the first housing; and
at least one common attachment that secures together the
first housing, the second housing, and the cover.

13. A support method, comprising:

securing together a first housing, a second housing, and a
cover with at least one common attachment, the first housing
supporting at least one first battery structure that is enclosed by
the second housing, the second housing supporting at least one
second battery structure that is enclosed by the cover without
nesting any portion of the second housing within an open area
of the first housing.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections from the Final
Office Action dated December 14, 2018:
I. Claims 13 and 15–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Kai (US 2008/0050645 A1, published February 28,
2008).

II. Claims 1, 7, 8, 10–12, 21–23, 25, and 26 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

3
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Andre (US 2015/0249238 A1,
published September 3, 2015).

III. Claims 9 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Andre and Kai.

For Rejection I, Appellant presents arguments only for independent
claim 13 and dependent claim 15. See generally Appeal Br. For Rejection
II, Appellant presents arguments for independent claims 1 and 21, as well as
for dependent claims 7, 8, 22, 25, and 26. Id. Appellant does not present
arguments for dependent claims 9–12, 16–20, 23, 24. Id. Accordingly, we
select independent claims 1, 13, and 21 as representative of the subject
matter claimed. Dependent claims 9–12, 16–20, 23, and 24 stand or fall
with their respective independent claim. We address the arguments for
claims 7, 8, 22, 25, and 26 separately.

OPINION
Rejection I (Claims 13 and 15) (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1))
After review of the respective positions Appellant presents in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner presents in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and
15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) for essentially the reasons the Examiner
presents. Our reasoning follows.
Claim 13
Independent claim 13 recites a method of securing together a first
housing, a second housing, and a cover with at least one common
attachment, where the second housing supports at least one second battery
structure that is enclosed by a cover without nesting any portion of the
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

4
second housing within an open area of the first housing.
The Examiner finds that Kai’s Figure 12 embodiment describes a
method of placing two battery modules in fixed relationship. Final Act. 3;
Kai ¶ 18. The Examiner finds that Kai teaches securing the two battery
modules together with bolts 92 as a common attachment. Final Act. 3; Kai
¶ 89. The Examiner further finds that Kai teaches that each battery module
of Figure 12 comprises lower cover 45 and upper cover 46 enclosing
plurality of cell packs 19. Final Act. 3; Kai Fig. 3, ¶ 42. The Examiner
finds that lower cover 45 of the bottom module corresponds to the recited
first housing that supports a first battery structure comprising multiple cell
packs 19. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that upper cover 46 of the
bottom module corresponds to the recited second housing that supports a
second battery structure of a top battery module placed over the bottom
battery module. Id. The Examiner finds that upper cover 46 of the top
battery module corresponds to the recited cover that encloses the second
battery structure. Id. The Examiner also finds that no portion of the second
housing (upper cover 46 of the bottom module) nests within an open area of
the first housing (lower cover 45 of the bottom module). Id. at 4. Therefore,
the Examiner finds that Kai’s Figure 12 embodiment anticipates the subject
matter of claim 13.
Appellant contends that upper cover 46 of Kai’s bottom module does
not support at least one second battery structure without nesting any portion
of the upper cover 46 within an open area of the lower cover 45. Appeal Br.
4. According to Appellant, Kai’s Figures 3 and 12 show that the walls of
upper cover 46 nest within the open area of lower cover 45. Id. (citing Kai
¶ 66). Specifically, Appellant asserts that a portion of upper cover 46 fits
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

5
within the open area between the bent ribs that extend upward from flange
portions 68 of lower cover 45 of the lower battery module. Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation for the reasons the Examiner presents.
Ans. 11–15. To anticipate, one skilled in the art must be able to “at once
envisage” the claimed subject matter in the prior art disclosure. In re
Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962). Further, in determining whether
a reference anticipates the subject matter recited in a claim, “it is proper to
take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
As the Examiner explains, the Specification describes an “open area”
as the area of the housing that receives a battery structure. Ans. 14; Spec.
¶ 9. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s statement. Appeal Br. 5;
Reply Br. 2. As the Examiner further explains, Kai’s flange 68 does not
form part of the open area of lower cover 45 (first housing) because it is not
intended to receive a battery structure. Ans. 13. Instead, flange 68 provides
the requisite surfaces to fix the covers together. Kai ¶ 66. Therefore,
Appellant has not explained persuasively why securing upper and lower
covers 46, 45 via flange 68 constitutes nesting given that flange 68 is not
part of the open area that receives a battery structure.
Moreover, the section of upper cover 46 that supports a second battery
structure is the upper face of upper cover 46. Kai Fig. 13. Appellant fails to
explain why this upper surface does not support the battery structure of the
top module when arranged as shown in Kai’s Figure 12. Nor has Appellant
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

6
directed us to any portion of Kai that teaches this upper surface as nesting
while supporting this battery structure.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites attaching the cover to both a lip of the first housing
and a lip of the second housing to secure them together.
The Examiner finds that Kai’s Figure 12 embodiment teaches the
claimed features. Final Act. 4.
Appellant contends that Kai’s long bolt 92 does not attach the flange
of upper cover 46 of the upper battery module to both the flange of upper
cover 46 of the lower battery module, and the flange of lower cover 45 of
the lower battery module. Appeal Br. 5–6.
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation for the reasons the Examiner presents.
Ans. 15–16.
Moreover, Kai discloses using long bolt 92 to fix the battery modules
to eliminate influences of vibration or the like when being mounted in a
mobile body such as a hybrid truck. Kai ¶ 179. One skilled in the art would
infer from this disclosure that long bolt 92 attaching the flanges of the
respective battery modules results in eliminating the influences of vibration.
See Preda, 401 F.2d at 826.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 13
and 15–20 for the reasons the Examiner presents and the reasons we give
above.
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

7
Rejection II (Claims 1, 7, 8, 21, 22, 25, and 26) (35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1),
103)
After review of the respective positions Appellant presents in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner presents in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 7,
8, 10–12, 21–23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 for
essentially the reasons the Examiner presents, but reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 for the reasons
Appellant presents. Our reasoning follows.
We first focus on the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1).
Independent claims 1 and 21
Independent claim 1 recites a support assembly comprising at least
one common attachment that secures together the first housing, the second
housing, and the cover. Independent claim 21 recites a support assembly
comprising a similar feature.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejection of claims 1 and 21. Final Act. 5–9. Briefly, the
Examiner finds that Andre’s Figure 2 anticipates the subject matters of
claims 1 and 21. See id. With respect to the common attachment feature,
the Examiner finds that Andre’s Figure 2 shows an arrangement of first
housing 7b, second housing 53, and cover 7a having junction edges for these
components aligned to be secured by a common attachment. Final Act. 6, 8;
Ans. 17.
Appellant argues that Andre’s Figure 2 embodiment does not disclose
a common attachment to secure the edges of separation wall 53 to junction
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

8
edges 8a, 8b. Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, Andre’s Figures 3 and
4 show instead that separation wall 53 fits within first housing 7b and, thus,
the “junction edge” of separation wall 53 is not shown to extend over
junction edge 8b. Id. at 8.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
As the Examiner explains in the Answer, Andre’s Figure 2 shows an
arrangement of first housing 7b, second housing 53, and cover 7a with each
having holes aligned in such a way that the junction edges for these
components are secured by a common attachment. Ans. 17. Note that
Figure 2 is an exploded view of Figure 1. Andre ¶¶ 69, 82. Andre’s Figure
1 shows a closed housing with the elements assembled and secured with
common attachments. Andre ¶ 68. Andre’s claim 3 also recites a
“tightening means consist of means for closing the housing, comprising a
bottom and a lid, said bottom or said lid comprising said at least one wall
intended to rest against the heat-regulating plate.” Based on these
disclosures, we agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would “at
once envisage” the recited common attachment in the prior art disclosure.
See Petering, 301 F.2d at 681.
With respect to Andre’s element 53 as fitting within first housing 7b
(Appeal Br. 8), this argument misapprehends Andre’s disclosure. Andre’s
Figure 2 shows two separation walls, separation wall 53 and separation wall
53’. Andre ¶ 94. Andre’s Figure 2 shows separation wall 53 as having
junction edges while showing separation wall 53’ lacking junction edges and
fitting within housing element 7b. Moreover, Andre’s Figure 3 shows the
assembly with cover 7a removed. Andre ¶ 70. This figure shows the second
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

9
battery structure placed on a surface where the second battery structure
protrudes above first housing 7b. Thus, one skilled in the art would
reasonably infer from Figures 2 and 3 that separation wall 53, the second
housing, is attached to the junctions of cover 7a and first housing 7b to
support the second battery structure as shown in Figure 3. See Preda, 401
F.2d at 826.
Although Andre also discloses alternative embodiments, such as the
one shown in Figure 7 (Appeal Br. 8), Appellant does not direct us to any
disclosure that supports the assertion that separation wall 53 cannot have
junction edges.
With respect to claim 21, Appellant additionally argues that Andre
does not teach the claim limitation of the “second tub at least partially nested
within the first tub such that the floor of the second tub is spaced a distance
from the at least one first battery structure.” Appeal Br. 9. According to
Appellant, the Examiner relies on Andre’s separation wall 53 as being
“positioned above and attached to the upper edges (47) [of flank 23] which
extend above upper surfaces of the plurality of first battery cells.” Id. Thus,
Appellant contends that Andre considers flank 23 to be part of an electrical
module along with the battery cells and, thus, separation wall 53 is not
spaced apart as recited in the claim. Id.
To give proper weight to the evidence of record and the respective
positions of Appellant and the Examiner, we must first determine what
“battery structure” means. Thus, our review of the grounds of rejection of
claim 21 under this argument necessarily entails interpreting the scope of
this claim, giving the broadest reasonable interpretation to the terms thereof
consistent with the written description provided in Appellant’s Specification
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

10
as one of ordinary skill in this art would interpret the claim. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Terms in the appealed claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation including the ordinary meaning unless Appellant intends
another meaning as established in the written description of the
Specification. See, e.g., In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321–22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
When the Specification does not contain an express definition, we apply a
reasonable, supported interpretation of the appealed claims even if that
differs from the interpretation Appellant urges us to adopt. Morris, 127 F.3d
at 1055–56 (“Absent an express definition in their specification, the fact that
appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their
interpretation does not make the PTO’s definition unreasonable when the
PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation.”). Indeed,
“[i]t is the applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the
PTO’s. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 [statute omitted].” Morris, 127 F.3d at
1055–56.
The Specification describes “battery structure” as a battery array
related to “electronics associated with the traction battery 14.” Spec. ¶¶ 23,
42. Although Appellant contends that disclosed battery arrays 18 potentially
include end plates to compress battery cells 136 axially (Appeal Br. 10; see
Spec. ¶ 58), a fair reading of the term “battery structure,” in light of the
Specification, is that it is a term used to describe batteries and electrical or
electronic components. Appellant does not explain how or why the end
plates would be considered batteries and electrical or electronic components.
We therefore interpret the claim 21 language “the floor of the second tub is
spaced a distance from the at least one first battery structure” as directed to
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

11
maintaining the floor of the second housing spaced a distance from a battery
or an electrical or electronic component the first housing supports.
As the Examiner explains, the floor of Andre’s second housing 53,
when attached to upper edges 47 is spaced a distance apart from each of the
electrical modules housed below the floor and first housing 7b supports
second housing 53. Ans. 24. This is consistent with our interpretation of
claim 21’s disputed language. Appellant has not explained persuasively how
the claimed invention distinguishes from Andre’s Figure 2 embodiment.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
Claims 7 and 8
Claim 7 recites that the common attachment comprises the cover
being secured to both a lip of the first housing and a lip of the second
housing while claim 8 recites that the lip of the second housing is
sandwiched between the lip of the first housing and the cover.
The Examiner finds that Andre’s Figure 2 describes these claimed
features. Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant’s arguments for these claims are based on Andre not
disclosing a common attachment and separation wall 53 having a junction
edge. Appeal Br. 9. We have addressed these arguments above with respect
to claims 1 and 21. We again find the arguments unpersuasive for the
reasons the Examiner presents and we give above.
Claims 22 and 25
Claim 22 recites that the floor of the second tub is detached from the
at least one first battery structure. Claim 25 recites that all portions of the
floor of the second tub are spaced a distance from the at least one first
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

12
battery structure to provide a continuous open area between the floor of the
second tub and the at least one first battery structure.
The Examiner finds that Andre’s Figure 2 describes these recited
features. Final Act. 9.
Appellant’s arguments for claims 22 and 25 are based on the
interpretation that flanks 23 comprising edges 47 are part of the battery
structure. As we discuss above, Appellant’s Specification describes “battery
structure” as pertaining to batteries and electrical or electronic components
and not an end plate such as flank 23. Therefore, Appellant has not
addressed adequately the Examiner’s finding that Andre’s separation wall 53
(floor) is detached from Andre’s first battery structure. Final Act. 9.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1,
7, 8, 10–12, 21–23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) for the reasons the
Examiner presents and we give above.
We also uphold the alternative obviousness rejection of claims 1, 7, 8,
10–12, 21–23, and 25 for the reasons the Examiner presents and those we
provide because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See, e.g., In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 26
However, we do not sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejections of
claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103.
Claim 26 recites that the second tub directly supports the at least one
second battery structure without directly supporting any portion of the at
least one first battery structure.
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

13
Appellant argues that Andre’s Figures 7 and 12 show that heat
regulating plate 33 supports directly the battery cells and, therefore,
separation wall 53 does not directly support the cells. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant has identified error in the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation and determination of obviousness based on Andre.
We note that the Examiner does not address Appellant’s argument that
heat regulating plate 33 is the element that directly supports the second
battery structure in Andre’s assembly. See generally Ans. Nor does the
Examiner direct us to any portion of Andre supporting the Examiner’s
finding that Andre’s separation wall 53 directly supports the second battery
structure. See generally Final Act.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claim
26 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 for the reasons Appellant presents.
Arguments not specifically addressed are deemed not persuasive for
the reasons the Examiner presents.
CONCLUSION
Because the affirmed rejections do not reach all the claims on
appeal, our decision is an affirmance in part.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
13, 15–
20
102(a)(1) Kai 13, 15–20
1, 7, 8,
10–12,
21–23,
25, 26
102(a)(1), 103 Andre 1, 7, 8,
10–12,
21–23, 25
26
9, 24 103 Andre, Kai 9, 24
Appeal 2020-000075
Application 15/484,630

14
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1, 7–13,
15–25
26

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

AFFIRMED IN PART