Ex Parte Millon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2018

13609474 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/609,474 09/11/2012
10800 7590 06/06/2018
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher M. Millon
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.
1576-1428 1056
EXAMINER
ZEMUI, NATHANAEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2018 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 CHRISTOPHER M. MILLON
Appeal2017-009275
Application 13/609,474
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and JANEE. INGLESE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1-17, 19, and 20. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a battery assembly. App. Br. 2-3. Claim 1
illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A battery assembly comprising:
1 Appellant identifies Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Robert Bosch GMBH as
the real parties in interest. Appeal Brief filed April 3, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2.
Appeal2017-009275
Application 13/609,474
a first lithium ion cell that includes a positive terminal,
that includes a negative terminal, and that includes an
electrically conductive can housing that encloses the first
lithium ion cell and that:
includes a top surface and a bottom surface; and
includes first, second, third, and fourth side surfaces that
are perpendicular to the top and bottom surfaces;
a cell isolator that includes a first portion and a second
portion,
wherein the first portion:
is made of an electrically non-conductive material;
includes a first wall member that directly contacts
the first side surface;
includes a second wall member that is
perpendicular to the first wall member and that directly
contacts a first area of the second side surface; and
includes a third wall member that is perpendicular
to the first wall member and that directly contacts a first
area of the third side surface;
wherein the second portion:
is made of the electrically non-conductive
material;
includes a fourth wall member that directly
contacts the fourth side surface;
includes a fifth wall member that is perpendicular
to the fourth wall member, that directly contacts the a
[sic] second area of the second side surface, and that
directly contacts a portion of the second wall member;
and
includes a sixth wall member that is perpendicular
to the fourth wall member, that directly contacts a second
area of the third side surface, and that directly contacts a
portion of the third wall member, and
wherein the first lithium ion cell is enclosed within the
housing,
wherein an inner surface of the first portion of the cell
isolator is fixed directly to an outer surface of the housing of
the first lithium ion cell, and
2
Appeal2017-009275
Application 13/609,474
wherein the first lithium ion cell is a prismatic lithium
ion cell of a battery module for a vehicle.
App. Br. 10-11 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered November 2, 2016 ("Final Act."), and maintains the
rejections in the Examiner's Answer entered May 19, 2017 ("Ans."):
I. Claims 1, 3-12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Park (US 2013/0309546 Al, published November 21,
2013, "Park l") in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2007/0037046 Al, published
February 15, 2007, "Takahashi"), and Park et al. (US 2009/0302804 Al,
published December 10, 2009, "Park 2") as evidenced by Ro (US
2011/0076543 Al, published March 31, 2011);
II. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park 1
in view of Takahashi, Park 2, and Onnerud et al. (US 2010/0108291 Al,
published May 6, 2010);
III. Claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Park 1 in view of Takahashi, Park 2, and Aston et al. ( US 8, 7 03 ,319
Bl, published April 22, 2014);
IV. Claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Park 1 in view of Takahashi, Park 2, and Yoon (US 2006/0257731 Al,
published November 16, 2006); and
V. Claims 3, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Park 1 in view of Takahashi, Park 2, and Lim (US 2011/0076528 Al,
published March 31, 2011 ).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant's contentions, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
3
Appeal2017-009275
Application 13/609,474
claims 1-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth
below.
We need consider only claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal,
which recites, inter alia, a battery assembly comprising an electrically
conductive can housing that encloses a first lithium ion cell, and a cell
isolator including first and second portions made of an electrically non-
conductive material. Claim 1 requires an inner surface of the first portion of
the cell isolator to be fixed directly to an outer surface of the housing.
The Examiner finds that Park 1 discloses a battery assembly
comprising a lithium ion bare cell 10 shaped as a pouch having a thin
aluminum shell (electrically-conductive housing), and a cell isolator 20
including first 21 and second 22 portions each made of an electrically non-
conductive plastic material. Final Act. 3 (citing Park 1 Abstract, i-fi-1 2, 29-
31; Fig. 3). The Examiner finds that Park 1 does not disclose that the
lithium ion cell is enclosed within an electrically conductive can housing,
and the Examiner relies on Park 2 to address this feature. Final Act. 3--4.
The Examiner finds that Park 2 discloses a battery pack comprising a
bare cell, and teaches that the bare cell can be housed in either a deep-drawn
metallic can or in a pouch. Final Act. 4 (citing Park 2 Abstract, i1 24 ). The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of Appellant's invention to substitute a deep-drawn
metallic can as disclosed in Park 2 for the thin aluminum pouch disclosed in
Park 1 because Park 2 teaches the functional equivalence of a can and a
pouch for covering (housing) a bare cell. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds that Park 1 also does not disclose that an inner
surface of a first portion of the cell isolator 20 is fixed directly to an outer
4
Appeal2017-009275
Application 13/609,474
surface of the pouch (lithium ion cell housing), and the Examiner relies on
Takahashi to address this feature. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds that Takahashi discloses a secondary battery in
which an adhesive 5 8 is used on an inner surface of a metallic housing 2 to
directly fix the metallic housing 2 to a battery cell 3, thereby preventing
unsteadiness if the battery falls or vibrates. Final Act. 4 (citing Takahashi
Abstract, i-f 120; Fig. 22C); Ans. 5. In view of these disclosures in
Takahashi, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant's invention to fix the cell
isolator 20 disclosed in Park 1 directly to the can housing of Park 1 as
modified by Park 2 via an adhesive to prevent unsteadiness and relative
movement between the cell isolator 20 and can housing if the battery falls or
vibrates. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5---6.
However, Park 1 discloses a pouch-type lithium bare cell having a
thin aluminum shell. Park 1 i-fi-12, 29. Park 1 discloses that because the
pouch-type bare cell "is easily damaged by external impact, it is contained
inside the cell case 20 made of plastic." Park 1 i-f 29. On the other hand,
Takahashi discloses a deep-drawn, metallic can-type battery cell housing
that provides impact resistance and mechanical strength, preventing
deformation and perforation if the battery is dropped or struck with a sharp
object. Takahashi i-f 51. Park 2 describes a battery pack comprising a bare
cell, and discloses that the bare cell can be a can-type battery that includes a
metallic can formed by deep-drawing, or can be a pouch-type battery that
includes a pouch having a thin aluminum layer. Park 2 i-f 24.
Even if Park 2 establishes the functional equivalence of a can-type
bare cell and a pouch-type bare cell as the Examiner asserts, and even if one
5
Appeal2017-009275
Application 13/609,474
of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have substituted a can-type bare
cell as disclosed in Park 2 for the pouch-type bare cell disclosed in Park 1,
the Examiner does not establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reason to enclose the can-type bare cell in a plastic cell case as
disclosed in Park 1. As Appellant correctly argues, the Examiner does not
identify any disclosure in the applied prior art of enclosing a can-type bare
cell in a plastic cell case. App. Br. 8. Nor does the Examiner provide sound
technical reasoning supported by objective evidence explaining why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it useful to enclose a can-type bare
cell as disclosed in Park 2 in a plastic case as disclosed in Park 1,
particularly in view of Park 1 's disclosure that the plastic cell case is used to
protect the easily-damaged pouch-type bare cell from external impact, while
Takahashi discloses that can-type bare cells protect against external impact.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not establish that the combined
disclosures of Park 1, Park 2, and Takahashi would have fairly suggested a
battery assembly comprising an electrically conductive can housing that
encloses a first lithium ion cell, and a cell isolator including first and second
portions made of an electrically non-conductive material, as recited in claim
1.
In addition, as discussed above, the Examiner determines that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have fixed the cell case (isolator) disclosed in
Park 1 directly to the can housing of Park 1 as modified by Park 2 via an
adhesive to prevent unsteadiness and relative movement between the cell
case (isolator) and can housing if the battery falls or vibrates, as disclosed in
Takahashi. Ans. 5---6.
6
Appeal2017-009275
Application 13/609,474
However, as Appellant points out, Takahashi discloses fixing a battery
cell 3 within a battery can 2 with an adhesive to prevent "unsteadiness of the
battery cell 3 within the battery can 2 as caused by falling or vibration of the
secondary battery 1 or the like." App. Br. 7; Takahashi i-f 120. As Appellant
also points out, Takahashi does not disclose enclosing the battery can within
a cell case (as disclosed in Park 1 ), and therefore does not disclose or
suggest adhering the battery can (housing) to a cell case (isolator) as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 7. The Examiner does not provide any objective
evidence demonstrating that the problems solved by Takahashi's use of
adhesive-namely, preventing strain on joining part 50 due to falls or
vibration (Takahashi i-f 120 and Fig. 22) or due to movement caused by heat
expansion (id. at i-f 121 and Fig. 23}-would be addressed by adhering the
battery can to a battery cell case. Rather, the Examiner relies only on
Takahashi's disclosure that adhering a battery cell directly to a battery can
prevents unsteadiness of the battery cell when the battery falls or vibrates.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not establish that Takahashi's
disclosure of adhering a battery cell to a battery can would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to adhere the cell case (isolator) disclosed in Park 1
directly to the can housing of Park 1 as modified by Park 2. Therefore, the
Examiner does not establish that the combined disclosures of Park 1, Park 2,
and Takahashi would have fairly suggested directly fixing an inner surface
of a first portion of a cell isolator to an outer surface of a lithium ion cell
housing, as required by claim 1.
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-
17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2017-009275
Application 13/609,474
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8