Ex Parte CALLICOAT et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2018

14165510 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/165,510 01/27/2014
28395 7590 07/17/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DEBBI CALLICOAT
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83365411 5575
EXAMINER
VO,JIMMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEBBI CALLICOAT and RAYMOND C. SI CIAK
Appeal2017-010274
Application 14/165,510 1
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-11, and 16-19.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to vehicle traction battery
assemblies (see, e.g., claims 1 and 9). The Inventors disclose that cells of
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which,
according to the Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (Br.) 1, filed
February 21, 2017.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed January 27, 2014 and
the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) dated May 4, 2017.
Appeal2017-010274
Application 14/165,510
traction batteries may be connected in series via bus bars that are attached to
the cells by fasteners, but such a connection is labor intensive, costly, and
may lead to fastener replacement or repair. Spec. ,r 2. According to the
Inventors, shields or covers may be positioned about bus bars to reduce or
eliminate exposure of personnel to high voltage, but such shields or covers
might not be properly positioned or could become detached. Id. ,r 3. 3 In
view of this, the Inventors disclose a battery assembly that eliminates the use
of labor intensive fasteners and cross-threaded fasteners, which simplifies
manufacturing and reduces cost. Id. ,r 7. In addition, the Inventors'
assemblies contact with a bus bar through welding slots of a bus bar
insulator. Id. ,r,r 8, 17, 21.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A vehicle traction battery assembly, comprising:
a bus bar insulator having a first side with a recess
configured to receive a bus bar and an opposite side covering
the bus bar and defining welding slots each sized to permit a
welding beam to weld the bus bar to a respective one of at least
two adjacent battery cells and to prevent human contact with
the bus bar through the welding slots.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1--4, 8, 9, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l)
as being anticipated by Nishihara; 4
3 The paragraph following paragraph 2 of the Specification is numbered
paragraph 1, which appears to be a typographical error. For purposes of
clarity, we refer to the paragraph following paragraph 2 as paragraph 3 and
renumber the paragraphs occurring after paragraph 3 accordingly.
4 The Examiner cites WO 2012/131809 Al, but states US 2014/0017533 Al
is an English-language equivalent. Ans. 7. Further references to Nishihara
2
Appeal2017-010274
Application 14/165,510
II. Claim 10 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Nishihara; and
III. Claims 6, 7, 11, and 19 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Nishihara in view of Nakayama. 5
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1--4, 8, 9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l)
as being anticipated by Nishihara. Appellant sets forth arguments for claims
1 and 9 and separate arguments for claim 2. Br 3-5. Appellant does not set
forth arguments for claims 3, 4, 8, and 16-18. Id. Therefore, we address
claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 16-18 as a first group and claim 2 as a second group.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 16-18
The Examiner finds Nishihara discloses a vehicle traction battery
assembly including a bus bar insulator defining welding slots that are sized
to permit a welding beam to weld a bus bar to battery cells, but would
inherently prevent human contact with the bus bar through the welding slots.
Ans. 7-8. The Examiner concludes that the language "prevent human
contact" means the welding slots are merely sized to prevent a type of
will refer to Nishihara et al., US 2014/0017533 Al, published Jan. 16, 2014
("Nishihara").
5 The Examiner cites WO 2013/005515 Al, but states US 2014/0065468 Al
is an English-language equivalent. Ans. 15. Further references to
Nakayama will refer to Nakayama, US 2014/0065468 Al, published Mar. 6,
2014 ("Nakayama").
3
Appeal2017-010274
Application 14/165,510
human contact and finds the openings 63 6 in Nishihara's cover member 60
would at least be sufficiently small enough to prevent a hand or foot from
passing through. Id. at 8.
Appellant asserts the Examiner's rejection does not provide any basis
in fact and/ or technical reasoning to support a determination that the welding
slots ofNishihara's bus bar insulator would necessarily be small enough to
prevent human contact and Nishihara does not disclose or suggest the danger
of contacting a bus bar through such a welding slot. Br. 3--4. Appellant
further contends the Examiner's interpretation of the language "prevent
human contact" is unreasonable in view of the context provided by
paragraph 17 of Appellant's Specification and the standard, IEC 60529. Id.
at 4. In addition, Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection improperly
relies on Nishihara's drawings for the size of the openings 63. Id.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Paragraph 17 of the
Specification discloses welding slots that "are sized to inhibit human contact
with the bus bar through the welding slots," but does not describe the type of
human contact or otherwise require the welding slots to inhibit or prevent all
types of human contact with a bus bar through the welding slots. Paragraph
17 further states, "[ t ]he size of the welding slots may be based on a
published ingress protection standard or rating, such as IEC60529, and
measured or tested using a corresponding probe." Thus, the Specification
states the welding slots may be sized according to an ingress protection
standard, such as IEC60529, but does not state what degree of ingress
protection ( e.g., what size of solid object is blocked from ingress) is afforded
6 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
4
Appeal2017-010274
Application 14/165,510
according to such a standard. Passages such as those in paragraphs 8, 17,
21, 25, and 26 of the Specification discuss the inhibition or prevention of
human contact with a bus bar through the welding slots, but do not qualify
whether all human contact is prevented. Nor do the passages quantify the
size of the slots to indicate what type of human contact (e.g., all human
contact or some types of human contact) is prevented. Therefore,
Appellant's Specification does not indicate that Appellant intended to limit
"prevent human contact" to preventing all types of human contact. As a
result, the Examiner's interpretation of "prevent human contact" as
encompassing the prevention of at least a type of human contact, such as
preventing the ingress of a hand or foot, is reasonable in view of Appellant's
disclosure.
The Examiner's rejection also sets forth a basis for Nishihara's
openings 63 being sized in the manner recited in claims 1 and 9. Although
the Examiner refers to sizes of components in Nishihara's drawings (Ans. 8,
18-19), the Examiner finds Nishihara discloses its battery can be used for an
electric vehicle, mobile unit, or for an electric device. Id. at 20. Nishihara
discloses its battery can be used for an electric vehicle, mobile unit, electric
power storage device, power supply, device, or electric device and thus
supports the Examiner's finding. Nishihara ,r 2. As explained by the
Examiner (Ans. 20), it would have been reasonable to expect that the
openings 63 in Nishihara's cover member 60 would be small enough to
prevent the ingress of a hand or foot when a battery including the cover
member 60 is sized for use in a mobile unit or a laptop.
5
Appeal2017-010274
Application 14/165,510
As a result, Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 9. Claims 3, 4, 8, and 16-18
depend from claims 1 and 9.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites "a wire harness duct
integrally formed with the bus bar insulator, the wire harness duct including
a plurality of walls that enclose a channel configured to receive a plurality of
wires."
The Examiner finds Nishihara's duct groove 68 or FPC groove 64 on
the cover member 60 would function as the wire harness duct of claim 2.
Ans. 8-9.
Appellant argues Nishihara discloses gas duct 30 is arranged in duct
groove 68 and Nishihara's FPC grooves 64 receive FPC boards 50 having
connection parts 55 in a plate or foil shape of conductive material so there
would have been no need for a wire harness. Br. 4--5. Appellant further
contends one of ordinary skill in the art would not have interpreted duct
groove 68 or FPC grooves 647 as the wire harness duct of claim 2. Id. at 5.
In response, the Examiner explains that duct groove 68 is part of
cover member 60 and duct groove 68 has walls that enclose a channel,
which is sufficiently wide to receive wires. Ans. 20. Nishihara's Figure 2 is
reproduced below.
7 This Decision does not reach the matter of whether the connection parts 55
arranged on Nishihara's FPC boards 50 are wires.
6
Appeal2017-010274
Application 14/165,510
FIG. 2
55
\
55 ~
/
60
Figure 2 is a perspective view of the bottom side ofNishihara's cover
member.
As shown in Figure 2 above, duct groove 68 is part of cover member
60 and has side walls that form a channel. Thus, duct groove 68 has the
structure recited in claim 2 and would be capable of receiving a plurality of
wires ( e.g., within the channel formed by duct groove 68 in Figure 2), as
recited in claim 2. As a result, Appellant's arguments do not identify a
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
7
Appeal2017-010274
Application 14/165,510
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 102(a)(l) rejection of claims 1--4, 8, 9,
and 16-18 over Nishihara.
Re} ection II
Claim 10 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Nishihara. Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites a wire harness duct
similar to the wire harness duct of claim 2, but recites the walls of the wire
harness duct form a tubular channel.
The Examiner finds that the channel formed by Nishihara's duct
groove 68 is rectangular, but it would have been obvious to modify the duct
groove 68 to have a tubular shape so as to fit a tubular gas duct because such
a modification would have involved a change in shape without a change in
function. Id. at 14.
Appellant sets forth arguments similar to those for claim 2. Br. 5---6.
Appellant does not address the Examiner's rationale for modifying
Nishihara's duct groove 68 to have a tubular shape. Id. For the reasons
discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 2, Appellant's
arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 10.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 10 over Nishihara.
Rejection III
Claims 6, 7, 11, and 19 are rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Nishihara in view of Nakayama.
8
Appeal2017-010274
Application 14/165,510
Appellant contends the rejection of claims 6, 7, 11, and 19 does not
rely upon Nakayama to disclose or suggest limitations of claims 1 and 9. Br.
6. For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection
of claims 1 and 9 that require curing by Nakayama.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 6, 7, 11, and 19
over Nishihara and Nakayama.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9