Ex Parte Lopez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2018

14610308 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/610,308 01/30/2015
28395 7590 09/07/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Juan Lopez
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.
83486086 7378
EXAMINER
ROBBINS, JERRY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2018 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 JUAN LOPEZ and NONDO G. BASOUKEAS
Appeal2017-009439
Application 14/610,308
Technology Center 2800
Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN,
and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge LILAN REN.
Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-009439
Application 14/610,308
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection2 of claims
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9--11, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIM
Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1 7. A vehicle comprising:
a traction battery;
a charge port having electrical contacts within a housing,
the charge port configured to conductively transfer charging
current via the contacts from an external source to the traction
battery;
a cold plate encasing a portion of the housing and having
a chamber;
a cooling system configured to provide coolant through
the chamber to cool the charge port depending on a temperature
of the charge port.
Claims Appendix 1-2 ( emphases added).
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Watanabe
Mark
Woo
us 5,909,099
US 9,287,646 B2
US 9,321,362 B2
Jun. 1, 1999
Mar. 15, 2016
Apr. 26, 2016
1 The real party in interest is identified as Ford Global Technologies, LLC.
Appeal Brief of February 28, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2.
2 Final Office Action ofNovember 18, 2016 ("Final Act."). In this opinion,
we also refer to the Examiner's Answer of June 5, 2017 ("Ans.") and the
Reply Brief of June 23, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-009439
Application 14/610,308
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Woo, and Mark. Final Act. 2. 3
OPINION
In rejecting claim 174, the Examiner finds that Watanabe describes a
cooling system to cool the charge port of an electrical vehicle whereas Woo
describes an electrical vehicle having a cooling conduit. Final Act. 6; Ans.
7. The Examiner explains that a skilled artisan would have known to cool
the charge port by either conductive or inductive heat transfer. Final Act. 7;
Ans. 9-10.
Appellant argues that the combined prior art does not teach or suggest
a "cold plate encasing the vehicle charge port." App. Br. 5-6; see also
Reply Br. 2 ( arguing that the prior art does not teach a cold plate that
"encases a portion of the charge port itself'). We are not persuaded that the
Examiner reversibly erred, because Appellant's argument is not
commensurate in scope with the claim language. Claim 17, as it is currently
written, requires "a charge port having electrical contacts within a housing"
and "a cold plate encasing a portion of the housing." The claim does not
3 Claims 7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watanabe, Woo, and Mark. Final Act. 2, 8. Claims 9 and
10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Watanabe, Woo, Mark, and an additional reference. Id. at 11. These claims
have been canceled. See App. Br. 3, 8; see also Claims Appendix.
4 Appellants do not present arguments separate from claim 1 7. Claims 1, 2,
4, 5, 11, and 18 stand or fall with claim 17. App. Br. 4, 8; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal2017-009439
Application 14/610,308
necessarily require "the cold plate [to] encase[] a portion of the housing of
the charge port" as argued by Appellants. Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 5-
6. Appellants' argument appears to be based on the premise that the claim
term "within a housing" modifies "a charge port" and not "electrical
contacts" - an interpretation that is inconsistent with the plain language of
the claim. "[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended,
ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored,
and clarification imposed." In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appellants' argument regarding the inoperability of the combined
teaching is likewise not commensurate in scope with the claim language and
does not identify reversible error in the Examiner's findings. See App. Br.
6-8; see also Reply Br. 3--4.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUAN LOPEZ and NONDO G. BASOUKEAS
Appeal2017-009439
Application 14/610,308
Technology Center 2800
Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN,
and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
I concur with my colleagues in affirming the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 17, and 18. However, I would affirm under 35
U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, and reverse, proforma, the Examiner's rejection
of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
On appeal from an Examiner's rejection, we consider a claim
indefinite "when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear."
Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB
Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314
(Fed. Cir. 2014)). Moreover, "claims are required to be cast in clear-as
opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite-terms." Id. ( quoting Packard at
1314 ). Also, "if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim
constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more
precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding
Appeal2017-009439
Application 14/610,308
the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite." In re Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential).
Claim 17 recites "a charge port having electrical contacts within a
housing." In my view, a person of ordinary skill in the art could plausibly
interpret this phrase, on its face, as requiring either the charge port or the
electrical contacts to be within the housing, or both. The Specification does
not resolve this ambiguity, because it does not specifically discuss this
limitation, and in the disclosed embodiments, both the charge port and the
electrical contacts are within the housing. See Spec. ,r,r 24--25, 32, Figs. 2, 4.
Because claim 1 7 has at least two plausible interpretations, I would conclude
that the claim is indefinite. Since the remaining claims include the same
ambiguous limitation, I would likewise conclude that claims 2, 4, 5, 11, 17,
and 18 are indefinite.
Therefore, I would conclude that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 17, and 18 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, as failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellant regard as the
invention. Because this is not the basis for the Examiner's rejection, I would
designate this as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b).
A rejection based on unpatentability over the prior art cannot be based
on speculations and assumptions. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385
(CCPA 1970); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). Therefore, I
would reverse, proforma, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11,
17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe,
Woo, and Mark. I take no position on the merits of that rejection as it would
relate to any particular claim interpretation.
2