Black & Decker Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

14755737 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
14/755,737 06/30/2015 Nathan Osborne P-US-TN-14937 1497
28268 7590 09/21/2020
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
6201 Greenleigh Avenue, MR045
Middle River, MD 21220
EXAMINER
CHANDLER, KAITY V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NATHAN OSBORNE, COREY REDMOND,
DUSTIN JEFFRIES, RALPHY A. LOUIS, MICHAEL VARIPATIS,
BHANUPRASAD V. GORTI, and DANIEL J. WHITE
____________

Appeal 2019-005221
Application 14/755,737
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, 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 rejecting claims 1–12, 19, and 20. A hearing was held
on September 17, 2020, a transcript of which will be made of record. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Black & Decker Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005221
Application 14/755,737

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a battery pack such as for a cordless power
tool. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 19 read as follows:
1. A battery pack, comprising:
a battery cell holder, wherein the battery cell holder
comprises a plurality of frames with each of the frames defining
a cavity and adjacent frames connected to each other; and
at least one pouch battery cell disposed in the cavity of
each of the frames, wherein pouch battery cells disposed in
adjacent frames are electrically connected to each other,
wherein the plurality of frames are arranged in a stacked
configuration.

19. A battery pack, comprising:
a battery cell holder, wherein the battery cell holder
comprises a tray defining a cavity;
a plurality of pouch battery cells arranged in a stacked
configuration inserted into the cavity; and
a lid coupled to the tray to cover the plurality of pouch
battery cells in the tray.
Appeal Br. 15–17 (Claims Appendix). Each remaining claim on appeal
depends from claim 1 or 19.

REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1–4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kim.3
II. Claims 5–7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kim and Lev.4

2 A rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn by the
Examiner. See Office Communication, mailed July 1, 2019.
3 US 8,173,293 B2, issued May 8, 2012 (“Kim”).
4 US 2013/0207612 A1, published August 15, 2013 (“Lev”).
Appeal 2019-005221
Application 14/755,737

3
OPINION
Rejection I: anticipation
Claim 1
Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds Kim
describes all of the features recited in claim 1, including pouch battery cells
123, 113 disposed within frames 121b, 111b. Final Act. 3 (citing Kim
Figures 3 and 9–11).
Appellant argues Kim does not describe a pouch battery cell as is
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10–11. Particularly, Appellant contends the
Specification uses “pouch cell battery” and “pouch cell” interchangeably,
and describes the latter as “utiliz[ing] a sealed, metal/polymer laminated
pouch 28 to hold the internal components of the cell 26.” Id. at 10 (quoting
Spec. ¶ 87). Thus, according to Appellant, Kim’s electrode assembly 113,
123 does not meet the recited pouch cell battery because it does not include
a laminated pouch. Id. at 11. Appellant also contends Kim states, “[e]ach
pouch battery 110 and 120 includes an electrode assembly 113 and 123 in a
pouch forming a case.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Kim 4:18–21). Thus,
according to Appellant, Kim’s case is part of the pouch battery cell and, for
that reason, cannot be relied upon to meet the frame recitation in claim 1.
Id. at 11.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Claim 1
recites, “at least one pouch battery cell disposed in the cavity of each of the
frames.” Appellant does not point to language in the claims that would limit
or otherwise define the scope of the term “pouch battery cell.” Although the
Specification refers to a metal/polymer laminated pouch for holding internal
components of a pouch cell battery (Spec. ¶ 87), that feature is not recited in
Appeal 2019-005221
Application 14/755,737

4
the claim. Nor does the Specification provide a definition of the term. See
id. (characterizing a sealed laminated pouch holding internal components as
“an example illustration” of pouch cells). Thus, Appellant does not identify
error in the Examiner’s finding that Kim describes pouch battery cells in the
form of electrode assemblies 113, 123. Moreover, even if Kim were viewed
such that case elements 111b, 121b were components of a pouch battery cell,
Appellant does not persuade us that Kim’s case elements are structurally
distinguishable from the recited frames. Appellant does not point to
language in claim 1 which would require a pouch battery cell to be disposed
entirely within a frame. Nor does Appellant point to language in claim 1
which would require the recited pouch battery cell and frame to be distinct
components. In that context, Kim is reasonably alternatively viewed as
disclosing a pouch cell battery 113, 111b which includes an electrode
assembly component 113 of the battery disposed within a frame 111b.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection as applied to claim 1.

Claim 19
Appellant does not seperately argue claim 19, except to rely on the
same arguments presented in connection with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12.
As such, Appellant also does not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection as
applied to claim 19.

Appellant does not separately argue any other claim. Accordingly, for
the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection as
applied to each of claims 1–4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, and 20.
Appeal 2019-005221
Application 14/755,737

5
Rejection II: obviousness
With regard to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, Appellant solely
argues the Examiner does not rely on Lev to overcome the purported
shortcomings of the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Appeal
Br. 13. Because Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection as applied to
claims 5–7 and 10 also is sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12, 19, and 20 is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 9,
11, 12, 19,
20
102(a)(1) Kim 1–4, 8, 9,
11, 12,
19, 20

5–7, 10 103 Kim, Lev 5–7, 10
Overall
outcome
1–12, 19,
20

TIME PERIOD FOR REPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED