12508983 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

Ex Parte Khakhalev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2014

12508983 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

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. 12/508,983 07/24/2009 Alexander D. Khakhalev P005491-MAN-LDA 9060 81466 7590 03/31/2014 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM One Maritime Plaza 720 Water Street 5th Floor Toledo, OH 43604 EXAMINER MCDERMOTT, HELEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1727 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2014 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 ALEXANDER D. KHAKHALEV and LEO CANALE ____________________ Appeal 2012-011200 Application 12/508,983 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The claims are directed to a battery pack for use in a vehicle. App. Br. 2-4. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: Appeal 2012-011200 Application 12/508,983 2 1. A battery pack for use in a vehicle comprising: a first set of battery cells, each of the battery cells in the first set including a first main body and a first foil cell tab extending from the first main body, each of the first foil cell tabs including a nickel plated copper base portion extending from the respective first main body and an aluminum contact portion bonded to and extending from the respective base portion; a second set of battery cells, each of the battery cells in the second set including a second main body and a second foil cell tab extending from the second main body, each of the second foil cell tabs being made of aluminum; an aluminum interconnect having a bridge, a first leg extending from the bridge and a second leg spaced from the first leg and extending from the bridge; and a first set of welds securing the contact portions of the first foil cell tabs to the first leg and a second set of welds securing the foil cell tabs of the second set of battery cells to the second leg. The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Kozuki US 6,156,452 Dec. 5, 2000 Yao US 2006/0177734 A1 Aug. 10, 2006 Cyr US 2007/0134551 Al Jun. 14, 2007 Ijaz US 2009/0297892 A1 Dec. 3, 2009 Appellants, App. Br. 5, request review of the following rejection from the Examiner’s final office action entered October 26, 2011:1 1 The Examiner withdrew the prior art rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Khakhalev (US Published Application No. US Appeal 2012-011200 Application 12/508,983 3 Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cyr, Kozuki, Ijaz and Yao. OPINION2 We REVERSE. We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action of October 26, 2011 for a statement of the prior art rejections (Final Office Action 9-14). Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Cyr and Kozuki would not lead one skilled in the art to a battery pack with cells having foil cell tabs of two different materials bonded together as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1. App. Br. 9-11. Appellants argue Cyr’s assembly has dissimilar materials joined together by the current collecting terminal (82). App. Br. 10. Appellants argue Kozuki teaches that a first material is bonded to another material to increase the strength of the bolting portion of the terminal so that the bolting section is better able to withstand the bolting operation. App. Br. 11; Kozuki col. 2, ll. 23-30, 54-60 Appellants argue Kozuki does not suggest to one skilled in the art to make foil cell tabs of two different materials bonded together as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1. App. Br. 11. 2010/0190055 A1 published July 29, 2010) as the primary reference. Ans. 2. 2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. A discussion of Ijaz and Yao are unnecessary for disposition of this appeal. The Examiner relied on these references for features not related to the discussion of the foil cell tabs above. Appellants acknowledge “Ijaz [and] Yao are cited for other elements of the claim and do not teach anything to overcomes the deficiencies of Cyr and Kozuki.” (App. Br. 12). Appeal 2012-011200 Application 12/508,983 4 We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner found that Cyr discloses a battery pack having cells with anodes (foil cell tabs) where the tabs are made of a single material while the subject matter of independent claim 1 requires the foil cell tab to have an aluminum contact portion and a nickel plated copper base. Final Office Action 9-10; Cyr Claim 1, Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0027], [0043]. Given that Kozuki’s aim is to improve the strength of the collector terminal to which Kozuki’s cell tabs are attached and not the cell tabs themselves (Kozuki col. 2, ll.23-30), the Examiner has not presented an adequate technical explanation of how one skilled in the art would modify Cyr’s foil cell tab to incorporate Kozuki’s teachings. While the Examiner reasons that Kozuki’s disclosed improvement in strength for the collector terminals is desirable in a foil cell tab such as that of Cyr (Ans. 2), the Examiner directs us to no portion of Kozuki that supports this reasoning. The Examiner has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would modify Cyr’s foil cell tabs in view of the teachings of Kozuki. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1-5 for the reasons presented by the Appellants and given above. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED tc