Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12923561 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/923,561 09/28/2010
27849 7590 06/17/2016
LEE & MORSE, P,C
3141 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE
SUITE 500
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shi-Dong Park
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.
302/174 3402
EXAMINER
D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
eoa@lee-iplaw.com
swerbow@lee-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SHI-DONG PARK, TAE-YONG KIM, MYUNG-CHUL KIM, and
HYUN-YE LEE
Appeal2014-007287
Application 12/923 ,5 61
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-10 of Application
12/923,561. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real parties in interest as Samsung SDI Co, Ltd. and
Robert Bosch GMBH. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007287
Application 12/923 ,5 61
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a battery module for a large
capacity power supply unit that may expand with use. Specification i-fi-12-3.
The module includes a restrainer to restrain expansion of the batteries within
the module. Claim 1, reproduced below with annotations from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief and with particular limitations at issue in
italics, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A battery module in which a plurality of batteries in a
battery unit are connected [0032], the battery module
compnsmg:
a pair of end plates facing each other [0032];
a restrainer coupled to the pair of end plates [0032], the
restrainer being for restraining expansion of the battery unit
[0032]; and
a coupling unit for coupling the end plates and the restrainer to
each other [0033],
wherein:
the coupling unit includes a variable position coupling device
[0034] configured to fix one end of the restrainer and one of
the end plates while varying a coupling location between the
one end of the restrainer and the one end plate [0006],
the one end plate and the one end of the restrainer are coupled
to each other by the variable position coupling device [0007],
the coupling unit further includes a fixed position coupling
device for fixing another end of the restrainer and the other end
plate at a predetermined coupling position ([0007] and [0034]),
the other end plate and the other end of the restrainer are
coupled to each other by the fixed position coupling device
[0007], and
the variable position coupling device has a structure that is
different from a structure of the fixed position coupling device
(FIGS. 1, 2, and 4).
2
Appeal2014-007287
Application 12/923 ,5 61
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Okada. 2
2. Claims 4--8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Okada and Kufner. 3
3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Okada and Heckman. 4
DISCUSSION
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants present a single argument for reversal of the rejection of
all claims at issue in the anticipation rejection, and do not present separate
arguments for any of the independent or dependent claims. App. Br. 3-10.
We choose claim 1 as representative; all other claims stand or fall with claim
1.
Appellants argue that Okada does not anticipate because it does not
disclose a battery module having the structure recited in claim 1. Br. 10.
Specifically, Appellants contend that Okada's metal strap (shown as
elements ending in 6) is not fixed at "one end" to one of the end plates of the
module by a variable position coupling device, and at "another end" to the
other end plate by a fixed position coupling device. Id. at 6-9. The
Appellants' position is that the "one end" and "another end" of the restrainer
recited in claim 1 should be construed as the portions of the restrainer at the
2 Okada et al. US 2008/0280194 Al published Nov. 12, 2008 ("Okada").
3 Kufner US 2008/0292424 Al published Nov. 27, 2008 ("Kufner").
4 Heckman US 213,446 issued Jun. 20, 1939 ("Heckman").
3
Appeal2014-007287
Application 12/923 ,5 61
"extremities, terminals, tips, etc." Id. at 7. The Examiner's position is that
according to the plain meaning of "end," the ends of the restrainer are at "the
furthest or most extreme part or point." Advisory Action dated Nov. 26,
2013. Thus, we first must interpret the claim terms relating to the ends of
the restrainer.
In determining an issue of claim construction, "the PTO must give
claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides
a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In
re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed the claim language and Specification in light of
Appellants' argument and the claim construction presented by the Examiner,
and determine that Appellants' argument lacks sufficient support.
Appellants have not pointed to anything in the Specification supporting their
position that the claim terms "one end" and "another end" are limited to the
extremities, terminals or tips of the restrainer. Further, they have not offered
any evidence to rebut the Examiner's finding that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood the ends of the restrainer according to the
plain meaning of "end" to be of the furthest or most extreme part. Thus, we
determine that a construction that does not require the ends of the restrainer
to be at the extremities, terminals or tips is consistent with the claim
language and Specification as they would be understood by a person of
ordinary skill in the art.
4
Appeal2014-007287
Application 12/923 ,5 61
Applying that claim construction to Okada, we find that Okada's
metal strap as shown in the embodiments of Figure 12 or 18 has one end
fixed through holes 17 in the strap to the near end plate 55B/85B (Okada
Fig. 12/18) of the battery module by a fixed position coupling device, and
the other end-the folded middle section of the strap 56/86 (id.)-fixed in
positioner 29/89 (id.) which is configured for variable position coupling with
the far end plate 55A/85A (id.). Thus, Okada's metal strap reads on the
restrainer recited in claim 1 and is coupled to Okada's end plates by
structures that encompass the coupling unit recited in claim 1.
Appellants further argue that Okada's positioner 29/89 (id.) is not
"configured to or capable of allowing any leeway in the position of the metal
straps 56, 75 therein or thereon .... The only location at which the
positioners 9, 29 are coupled with the metal straps is at the bent portion
along the length of the metal straps." Br. 10. Appellants' argument is not
persuasive of reversible error in the rejection. The Examiner correctly finds
that the positioners 9/29 fixed to the far end plate provide leeway to
compensate for expansion in the battery cells in the stacking direction.
Okada i-fi-170, 78 (e.g., "Through the above procedures, the layered
rectangular cells are held in the compressed state by means of the pair of end
plates 5, 25. Therefore, even when the rectangular cell tends to expand
through an overcharging operation or the like, the interval between the
opposite end plates 5, 25 remains unchanged, so that the expansion of the
rectangular cells is inhibited by the end plates 5, 25." Id. i178)
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner did not reversibly err, and we
affirm the anticipation rejection.
5
Appeal2014-007287
Application 12/923 ,5 61
Obviousness Rejections
The obviousness rejections are directed only to dependent claims 4--8
and 9. In challenging the obviousness rejections, Appellants merely state
conclusorily that nothing in Okada, Kufner, or Heckman would lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to prepare the recited battery module, based on the
teachings of the references. Br. 10. Appellants present no substantive
argument for patentability of claims 4--8 and 9. Br. 10-11. Therefore, we
need not address those claims, and accordingly, we affirm the rejection.
SUMMARY
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-10 as
anticipated by Okada under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4--8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Okada and Kufner.
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Okada and
Heckman.
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