Ex Parte Oury et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2017

13448823 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2017)

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.
13/448,823 04/17/2012 Andrew P. Oury P019264-GM VE- CHE 1022
83938 7590 07/25/2017
Brooks Kushman P.C.
1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
DIGNAN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2017 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 ANDREW P. OURY, CHRISTOPHER A. SCHLAUPITZ, CHIH-
CHENG HSU and ZHONGYING SHI
Appeal 2016-005008
Application 13/448,823
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JULIA HEANEY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 seek our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20 of Application 13/448,823. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Apr. 17, 2012) (“Spec.”),
Final Rejection dated Feb. 13, 2015 (“Final Act.”), Appeal Brief filed Oct.
13, 2015 (“App. Br.”), Examiner’s Answer dated Feb. 8, 2016 (“Ans.”), and
Reply Brief filed Apr. 8, 2016) (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as GM Global Technology
Operations LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005008
Application 13/448,823
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to cooling of a battery pack
having multiple battery modules, by positioning a fan between the battery
modules to create air flow within a plurality of channels in the modules.
App. Br. 2—3. According to the Specification, the claimed cooling system
achieves weight and cost reduction by using a single fan, unlike prior art
systems which used two blowers to cool two battery modules. Spec. 19.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A battery pack including:
a first battery module including a first plurality of battery
cells separated by a first plurality of channels;
a second battery module including a second plurality of
battery cells separated by a second plurality of channels;
a fan that creates air flow between the first and second
plurality of channels by rotating along a rotation direction; and
a manifold having a first conduit section leading from the
fan to the first plurality of channels and a second conduit
section leading from the fan to the second plurality of channels,
the fan being positioned in the manifold between the first
battery module and the second battery module where it creates
the air flow that is directed by the manifold to the first plurality
of channels and the second plurality of channels.
THE REJECTIONS
2
Appeal 2016-005008
Application 13/448,823
1. Claims 1—8, 11—16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fujii3 and
Homg.4 Ans. 2.5
2. Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Inui,6 Homg, Hwang,7 Fujii,
Cicero,8 and Wood.9 Final Act. 11.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Inui, Homg, Hashimoto,10 Fujii, Cicero, and
Wood. Final Act. 12.
4. Claims 9—10 and 17—18 are rejected as unpatentable over the
combination of Inui, Homg, Zheng,11 Fujii, Cicero, and Wood.
Final Act. 13.
3 Fujii US 2008/0026284 A1 published Jan. 31, 2009.
4 Homg et al. US 2007/0193720 A1 published Aug. 23, 2007 (“Homg”).
5 In the Answer, the Examiner notes that many of the references cited in the
rejection of claim 1 in the Final Rejection are redundant, and modifies the
grounds of rejection in order to simplify the issues by relying only on Fujii
in view of Homg. Ans. 2. Appellants do not argue against the simplified
grounds of rejection (Reply Br. 1—2) and have not petitioned for review of
the simplified grounds of rejection as an improper new ground.
Accordingly, we limit our discussion to the grounds of rejection set forth by
the Examiner in the Answer.
6 Inui et al. US 6,448,741 B1 issued Sep. 10, 2002 (Inui).
7 Hwang et al. US 2008/0011461 Al published Jan. 17, 2008 (Hwang).
8 Cicero et al. US 2012/0177971 Al published Jul. 12, 2012 (Cicero).
9 Wood et al. CUS 2009/0017366 Al published Jan. 15, 2009 (Wood).
10 Hashimoto US 2007/0084584 Al published Apr. 19, 2007.
11 Zheng US 2006/0078423 Al published Apr. 13, 2006.
3
Appeal 2016-005008
Application 13/448,823
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellants present argument for independent claims 1, 12, and 20 as a
group based on the common limitation of a “fan being positioned in the
manifold between the first battery module and the second battery module.”
App. Br. 4. Appellants do not separately argue the dependent claims. Id. at
4—11. We treat claim 1 as representative; dependent claims stand or fall
with the claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Fujii teaches a battery cooling system
including every limitation in claim 1, except that Fujii does not explicitly
teach situating the fan in the manifold between the first battery module and
the second battery module. Ans. 4 (providing citations to Fujii). The
Examiner finds that Homg teaches situating a rotating fan in the middle of a
manifold comprising ducts for distributing coolant to separate components
of an electric device, and that dissipating heat from electrical components is
an analogous problem to cooling of battery modules. Id. (providing citations
to Homg). The Examiner determines that in view of Homg’s teaching, it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to situate the
fan in Fujii within the manifold between the two battery modules, in order to
save space, reduce energy loss, or miniaturize the battery back. Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that Homg is “deficient as it does not disclose a fan
positioned between two battery modules” (App. Br. 7), which appears to be
an argument against combining Homg with prior art relating to battery
cooling. Appellants do not explain, however, why a person of ordinary skill
in the art would not have been led by Homg’s teaching to situate Fujii’s fan
within two battery modules, or provide any analysis to demonstrate that
Homg is non-analogous art. Because Appellants’ argument is conclusory
4
Appeal 2016-005008
Application 13/448,823
and lacks supporting evidence or explanation, it does not persuade us that
the Examiner committed reversible error. Similarly, Appellants’ argument
concerning the purported advantages and “superior uniformity achieved by
the design of the present invention” (App. Br. 5—6) is not persuasive, at least
because it does not explain how those properties are commensurate with the
limitations of claim 1, or provide any comparative data.
Appellants further argue that the rejection improperly “us[es] the
present invention as a blueprint for the design of a more efficient battery
cooling system” (App. Br. 11). The Examiner responds by noting that
Homg provides the rationale needed for situating the fan in the middle of a
cooling manifold for battery modules because Homg “teaches that placing
the fan in such a manner enhances efficiency when attempting to cool two
‘objects’ and can be used in ‘any device that requires heat-dissipation.’”
Ans. 6 (providing citations to Homg). The Examiner further finds that
Homg’s teaching would have been particularly relevant to a person of
ordinary skill seeking to reduce the size of a battery pack or to enhance
cooling efficiency of the fan because basic principles of cooling are known
and regularly applied by persons of skill in the battery arts, as evidenced by
diagrams showing fans as stmctureless boxes in the cited references. Id. at
7. Appellants do not persuasively dispute this explanation, and therefore do
not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. See
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416—19 (2007) (holding obvious
the inclusion of a known device because there was no evidence presented that
the inclusion of the known device in the combined device was “uniquely
5
Appeal 2016-005008
Application 13/448,823
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art”).
Appellants’ further arguments that various references are deficient
because none of them teach a fan positioned in a manifold between two
battery modules (App. Br. 7—11) are not persuasive of reversible error
because they are directed at the references individually, although the
rejection is based on a combination of the references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based on combination of the
references).
Rejections 2—4
Appellants’ arguments against these rejections, although presented
under separate headings, rely on the same arguments as they present for
claim 1. App. Br. 11—12. Accordingly, we affirm Rejections 2—4 for the
same reasons as discussed above.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—20 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6