Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

14057323 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
2178-0913 4744
EXAMINER
D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/057,323 10/18/2013
10800 7590 09/21/2017
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Jens Schneider
09/21/2017 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 ROBERT BOSCH GMBH AND
SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.1
Appeal 2017-001887
Application 14/057,323
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 3—5, and 11—14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Holung.2 See Examiner’s Final Office Action 2,
dated February 5, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Examiner’s Answer 2, dated
September 16, 2016 (“Ans.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Applicants are referred to herein as “Appellants” and are also identified as
the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3, filed June 29, 2016 (hereinafter
“App. Br.”). This application names Jens Schneider, Anne Heubner, and
Holger Reinshagen as inventors.
2 U.S. Application Publication 2010/0247987 Al, issued September 30, 2010
to Joseph Anthony Holung et al., (hereinafter “Holung”).
Appeal 2017-001887
Application 14/057,323
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a safety device for a lithium-ion
battery, comprising a planar metallic conductor having an insulating layer
applied, a heating resistor arranged on the insulating layer and connected to
the metallic conductor, and a terminal contact in electrical connection to a
battery cell terminal. Specification (“Spec.”) 1 spanning 3^4. According to
the Specification, applying a heating resistor to a conventional metal plate or
foil of a nail safety device can provide the additional function of a cell
heating system with reduced weight compared to batteries having separate
nail safety and heating devices. Spec. 1 spanning 4—5.
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and
is reproduced below:
1. A controlled discharge device for arrangement in a
battery cell of a lithium-ion battery, comprising:
a planar member in a fixed position within a housing of
the battery cell, the planar member including at least one
metallic conductor of a planar form to which an insulating layer
has been applied; and
at least one heating resistor mounted to the at least one
metallic conductor of the planar member, the at least one
heating resistor including a first contact and a second contact;
and
a switching element electrically connected to the first
contact of the heating resistor, the switching element being
configured to close a circuit to enable an electrical current flow
from the a first terminal of the battery cell through the heating
resistor to a second terminal of the battery cell connected to the
second contact in response to a first signal and to open the
circuit to prevent the electrical current flow through the heating
resistor in response to a second signal.
App. Br. 14, Claim App’x.
2
Appeal 2017-001887
Application 14/057,323
Appellants present arguments with respect claim 1. While Appellants
discuss the remaining claims under separate headings, no sufficiently
distinct argument is made with respect to those other claims. App. Br. 13.
Accordingly, we limit our discussion below to claim 1 as representative of
all of the claims on appeal.
Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the
Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact appearing below
for emphasis.
II. Discussion
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Holung. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a switching element electrically
connected to the first contact of the heating resistor, the switching element
being configured to close a circuit to enable an electrical current flow from
the first terminal of the battery cell through the heating resistor to a second
terminal of the battery cell connected to the second contact in response to a
first signal and to open the circuit to prevent the electrical current flow
through the heating resistor in response to a second signal.”
Appellants contend that Holung does not teach a discharge device that
actively connects the battery cell to the heating resistor using a switching
element, but rather teaches a fuse that disconnects a battery cell to prevent
thermal runaway. App. Br. 9. We disagree with the Appellants that the
claim requires the switch to “actively” connect to the heating resistor. We
further note that the claim has no structural requirements for the switching
element other than it be “electrically connected” to a contact of the heating
resistor. For the reasons discussed by the Examiner (Ans. 6—7), the fuse of
Holung contacts the heating resistor (anode sheet 114) and meets the
3
Appeal 2017-001887
Application 14/057,323
functional requirements of the switch as recited in the claims. Holung
teaches a switch (fuse) that functions substantially identically to the switch
in the invention. Specifically, Holung teaches that, when the system
provides a “cold” signal (e.g., during normal operating conditions), the
switch (fuse) is closed, allowing for the current to flow. Similarly, when the
system provides a “hot” signal (e.g. during thermal runaway), the switch
(fuse) is open, stopping the current from flowing. See Holung, 139.
Appellants argue that anode sheet 114 of Holung is not a heating
resistor and is not heated during normal operations, but only during a
“thermal runaway” event. App. Br. 10. We agree with the Examiner that
the anode sheet 114 is a heating resistor under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of that term because it is a structure that performs the function
of heating and resistance. Ans. 5—6. Even Appellants admit that the anode
sheet performs heating and resistive functions. See App. Br. 10 (“while of
course the anode sheet 114 experiences heating during a ‘thermal runaway’
event. . .” and “while the anode sheet 114 likely has some degree of
inherent resistance . . .”). Still Appellants contend, without explanation, that
a skilled artisan would not reasonably interpret the term “heating resistor” as
anode sheet 114. Without a clear definition of “heating resistor” intending a
narrower meaning, the claims require no more than what is taught by
Holung.
Appellants further argue that anode sheet 114 of Holung is not
connected between first and second terminals of a battery by a switching
device, and that such an arrangement would cause a short circuit of Holung’s
device. App. Br. 10. Appellants assert that, even if fuse 220 could be
considered a switching element, it is not positioned between a battery
4
Appeal 2017-001887
Application 14/057,323
terminal and a heating resistor, as recited in the claims. App. Br. 11.
According to Appellants, the fuse 220 is connected to two parts of an anode
sheet 114, but the anode sheet 114 is not “directly connected” to the cathode
sheet segments 116. Id. According to Appellants, anode sheet 114 is only
“electrically connected” to one terminal, the anode terminal. Reply Br. 2—3.
The Examiner finds that Holung teaches the structure recited in the
claims in that the phrase “electrically connected” does not require the
components be “directly connected,” as argued by Appellants. Instead, the
phrase “electrically connected” requires only that electrons flow through all
of the components from the negative terminal through the electrodes and
fuses and out through the positive terminal to a connected load. Ans. 6. We
agree with the Examiner, particularly in light of the preamble of the claim
reciting that all of the components make up an “arrangement in a battery
cell.” Thus, we need not look to any components outside of the battery cell
arrangement to meet the requirements of the claims.
For example, with respect to Figure 3 of Holung, current flows from a
cathode terminal (the cathode equivalent of terminal 222 in Figure 2b) to
fuse 220, then through cathode current collectors 214 to cathode sheets 116,
then through separators 210 to anode sheets 114, then through anode current
collectors 212 to fuse 320, and then to an anode terminal 222 (see Figure
2b). Accordingly, the current flows as recited in the claims, namely “a
switching element [fuse 220 or fuse 320] electrically connected to the first
contact of the heating resistor [cathode sheet 116 or anode sheet 114], the
switching element [fuse 220 or fuse 320] being configured to close a circuit
to enable an electrical current flow from the a first terminal [cathode
terminal] of the battery cell through the heating resistor [fuse 220 or fuse
5
Appeal 2017-001887
Application 14/057,323
320] to a second terminal of the battery cell [anode terminal 222] connected
[i.e., in electrical connection with] to the second contact [of the heat resistor,
cathode sheet 116 or anode sheet 114].”
Appellants contend that the separator cannot be part of an electrical
connection, arguing only that the separator provides a spatial relation
between the cathode sheet 116 and anode sheet 114. Appellants do not
explain the scientific reasoning behind this assertion. Reply Br. 3^4. To the
contrary, the battery would not function unless an electrical charge (current)
moves through the separator from the cathode to the anode. Thus, the
cathode and anode must be electrically connected via a separator as well as
the other components of the battery.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error with respect to the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
III. CONCLUSION
On the record before us and for the reasons discussed above, we
sustain the rejection maintained by the Examiner, namely claims 1, 3—5, and
11—14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Holung.
IV. ORDER
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—5, and 11—14 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Holung.
6
Appeal 2017-001887
Application 14/057,323
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7