Ex Parte Hermann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

13027018 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/027,018 02/14/2011 Weston Arthur Hermann
113241 7590 07/25/2016
Garlick & Markison (TSLA)
P. 0. Box 160727
Austin, TX 78716-0727
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.
2010US0052 5976
EXAMINER
CHERNOW, FRANK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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):
patents@teslamotors.com
mmurdock@texaspatents.com
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WESTON ARTHUR HERMANN
Appeal2014-007165
Application 13/027,018
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 15-17, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over at least Nebrigic (US
2007 /0212596 Al; published Sept. 13, 2007) with Yonemochi (US
2008/0220321 Al; published Sept. 11, 2008).2 We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter:
1 The Real Party in Interest is stated to be Tesla Motors, Inc. (App. Br. 2).
2 The Examiner further relies upon Hong (US 7,482,081 B2; issued Jan. 27,
2009) for the rejection of dependent claim 21 (Ans. 13).
Appeal2014-007165
Application 13/027,018
1. A hazard mitigation system, compnsmg:
a power source, compnsmg:
a first battery pack contained within a first battery pack enclosure and
comprised of a plurality of metal-air cells, said first battery pack enclosure
further comprised of at least a first air inlet, an air outlet, and a second air
inlet;
a second battery pack contained within a second battery pack
enclosure and comprised of a plurality of non-metal-air cells, said second
battery pack enclosure further comprised of a hot gas outlet;
an air passageway coupling said hot gas outlet of said second battery
pack enclosure to said second air inlet of said first battery pack enclosure;
and
a first valve for controlling air flow out of said second battery pack
enclosure and through said hot gas outlet and through said air passageway
and through said second air inlet and through at least a portion of said
plurality of metal-air cells within said first battery pack enclosure prior to
being expelled out of said first battery pack enclosure via said air outlet, said
first valve having at least a first position that permits air flow and a second
position that prevents air flow, wherein during normal operation of said
power source said first valve is in said second position, and wherein said
first valve is configured to switch from said second position to said first
position upon the occurrence of a thermal event within said second battery
pack to permit effluent generated during said thermal event to pass through
said hot gas outlet and through said air passageway and through said second
air inlet and through at least a portion of said plurality of metal-air cells prior
to being expelled out of said first battery pack enclosure via said air outlet.
App. Br. 8.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Translogic
2
Appeal2014-007165
Application 13/027,018
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt,
211F.3d1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of the claims in
patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.) (citations omitted); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315
(Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term.'" (citation omitted)).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies upon Nebrigic for the disputed claim limitations
(Ans. 4, 5; App. Br. 4--7). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
shown how Nebrigic discloses (1) "a first battery pack enclosure" as well as
"a second battery pack enclosure"; (2) "said first valve is configured to
switch from said second position to said first position upon the occurrence
of a thermal event"; and (3) "a first air inlet" and "a second air inlet" for the
first battery pack enclosure as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br.
2---6). A preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant's position.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has taken an
unreasonably broad interpretation of the aforementioned claim limitations
when considered in light of the Specification for the reasons explained in the
Briefs and, in doing so, erred in finding that Nebrigic teaches or suggests the
disputed claim limitations. The Examiner does not appear to rely upon
Yonemochi or Hong to cure the above-discussed deficiencies in Nebrigic
3
Appeal2014-007165
Application 13/027,018
(e.g., Ans. 14--19). The Examiner fails to direct us to any evidence that the
applied prior art teaches or suggests the disputed elements as claimed. Thus,
we cannot sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections.
Accordingly, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are reversed.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
4