Ex Parte Kawase et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

12670154 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/670, 154 01/22/2010 Satomi Kawase
22852 7590 02/28/2019
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
l 1139.0008-00000 1577
EXAMINER
LAIOS, MARIA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SATO MI KAW ASE and
TOMOHIRO MATSUURA
Appeal2017-006036 1
Application 12/670,154
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 24--27, 29, and 30, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellants identify TOY OT A JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2017-006036
Application 12/670, 154
Appellants' invention is generally directed to a battery assembly and a
method for manufacturing a battery assembly comprising a plurality of unit
cells which are suitable for installation in a vehicle. (Spec. ,r 1 ). Claims 24
and 27 illustrate the subject matter on appeal. Claim 24 is reproduced below:
24. A method for manufacturing a battery assembly having a
plurality of unit cells and a connection tool, each of the unit
cells including a flat-shaped electrode body having a positive
electrode sheet and a negative electrode sheet being wound
together with a separator, a flat-shaped container having the
flat-shaped electrode body, a positive electrode terminal
electrically connected to the positive electrode sheet, and a
negative electrode terminal electrically connected to the
negative electrode sheet,
wherein the method comprises:
placing one or more gap filling sheets on a flat surface of the
flat-shaped electrode body in the flat-shaped container such that
a combined thickness of the flat shaped electrode body and the
one or more gap filling sheets placed on the flat surface of the
flat-shaped electrode body corresponds with a predetermined
target value,
wherein the flat-shaped electrode body has a thickness less than
the predetermined target value;
binding the plurality of unit cells such that the plurality of unit
cells are arranged in the direction in which the flat surface of
the flat-shaped electrode body of one of the plurality of unit
cells faces the flat surface of the flat-shaped electrode body of
another one of the plurality of unit cells laying side-by-side;
and
connecting the plurality of unit cells in series by connecting the
positive electrode terminal of one of the plurality of unit cells to
the negative electrode terminal of another one of the plurality of
unit cells laying side-by-side using the connection tool, wherein
2
Appeal2017-006036
Application 12/670, 154
the connection tool is disposed outside of the flat-shaped
container.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections from the Final
Office Action for our review:
I. Claims 24--26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over
the combination Marple et al. (US 2005/0233214 Al) ("Marple") and
Ichinose et al. (US 2006/0269842 Al) ("Ichinose").
II. Claims 27, 29, and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over the combination of Ichinose and Marple.
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in
the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 2---6).
OPINION
Appellants present substantive arguments addressing independent
claims 24 and 27. (App. Br. 6-12). Appellants contend independent claims
24 and 27 are patentable for the same reasons. (App. Br. 11-12). We will
address independent claim 24 as argued by Appellants. Any claim not
separately argued will stand or fall with its independent claim 24.
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellants in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner's
rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief and
Final Office Action appealed from, which we adopt as our own. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
3
Appeal2017-006036
Application 12/670, 154
Appellants argue Marple does not teach or suggest that any gap filling
sheet or member is inserted into the housing container between the wrapped
electrode assembly of Marple and one or more side walls of the container
housing disclosed in Marple. (App. Br. 8). Appellants argue Marple does
not teach or suggest adjusting the stacking direction thickness of the
electrode bodies of a plurality of unit cells to correspond with a
predetermined target value. (App. Br. 9). Appellants also argue Ichinose
does not cure the deficiencies of Marple. (App. Br. 10).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. We
adopt the Examiner's responses to Appellants' arguments.
The Examiner found Marple discloses a battery and teaches the use of
at least one layer of electrically insulating film ( of polypropylene) wrapped
around the electrode assembly in order to help hold the assembly together
and to adjust the width or diameter of the assembly to the desired dimension
(Final Act. 3; Marple 97). The Examiner found Ichinose discloses a plurality
of battery cells connected together in series via connective terminals -
located outside of the flat shaped container- and banded together by
endplates and a bridge. (Final Act. 3; Ichinose Fig. 4). The Examiner
determined Ichinose Figure 4 describes binding the plurality of unit cells
such that the plurality of unit cells arranged in the direction in which the flat
surface of the electrode body of one of the plurality of unit cells faces the
flat surface of the flat shaped electrode body of another one of the plurality
of unit cells laying side by side. (Final Act. 4 ). The Examiner concluded "it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to bind together a plurality of unit cells of Marple with the
4
Appeal2017-006036
Application 12/670, 154
connection tool of Ichinose in series to increase capacity and thus be able to
power a vehicle." (Final Act. 4).
In KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419--20 (2007) the
Supreme Court observed that:
In determining whether the subject matter of a ... claim
is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed
purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective
reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is .
. . [ unpatentable] under § 103. One of the ways in which a
patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for
which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent's claims.
See also Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
("The Supreme Court's decision in KSR . .. directs us to construe the scope
of analogous art broadly," stating that "familiar items may have obvious
uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will
be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
puzzle.") ( emphasis omitted).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
suitability of performing a method for manufacturing a battery assembly
wherein the plurality of unit cells such -as described by Marple- are
bound together as described by Ichinose. The claimed invention does not
preclude the one or more gap filling sheets from wrapping around the flat
shaped electrode body. Appellants have not explained how the wrapping of
the electrode assembly as described by Marple fails to adjust the stacking
direction thickness of the electrode body unit cell. Moreover, Appellants
5
Appeal2017-006036
Application 12/670, 154
acknowledge Marple suggests "the thickness of the wrapped electrode
assembly itself can be adjusted by adjusting the at least one layer of
separator and/or the at least one layer of electrically insulating film that
wraps around the outside of the electrode assembly." (App. Br. 9).
Consequently, after consideration of Appellants' arguments, we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's determination of obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims
24--27, 29, and 30 for the reasons given above and presented by the
Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 24--27, 29, and 30 are
affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6