Ex Parte Shevock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

11855497 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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.
11/855,497 09/14/2007 Bryan Shevock 81160757 6971
28395 7590 03/31/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER O DONNELL, LUCAS J
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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 BRYAN SHEVOCK,
and PATRICK DANIEL MAGUIRE
Appeal 2016-002354
Application 11/855,4971
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5—10, 15—17, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system for electrically
connecting modules of a vehicle power storage unit wherein the module has
1 The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC.
(App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-002354
Application 11/855,497
a spring loaded clip terminal. (App. Br. 2) Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A system for electrically connecting modules of a vehicle
power storage unit, the system comprising:
an electrical bus;
a module having a dual-hinged spring loaded clip terminal
defining generally co-planar retention surfaces and an
electrochemical cell, wherein the dual-hinged spring loaded clip
terminal is electrically connected with the electrochemical cell
and wherein the generally coplanar retention surfaces of the
dual-hinged spring loaded clip terminal are configured to
receive and retain a portion of the electrical bus,
and
an additional module having an additional dual-hinged spring
loaded clip terminal defining generally co-planar retention
surfaces and an additional electrochemical cell, wherein the
additional dual-hinged spring loaded clip terminal is electrically
connected with the additional electrochemical cell and wherein
the generally co-planar retention surfaces of the additional dual-
hinged spring loaded clip terminal are configured to receive and
retain another portion of the electrical bus.
The following rejections are presented for our review:
Claims 1, 2, 5—8, 10, 15—17, and 21 have been rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Winch et al., (US 6,391,489 B1 issued
May 21, 2002), Pavlovic et al., (US 7,175,488 B2 issued Feb.13, 2007)
(Pavlovic), Asaka et al., (US 2002/0022178 Al published Feb. 21, 2002)
(Asaka), andNakayama et al., (US 4,992,062 issued Feb. 12, 1991)
(Nakayama).
Claim 9 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Winch, Pavlovic, Asaka, Nakayama, and Kaye (US 4,186,983 issued
Feb. 5, 1980).
2
Appeal 2016-002354
Application 11/855,497
OPINION
The dispositive issue is: Did the Examiner err in determining that
Winch, Pavlovic, Asaka, and Nakayama would have suggested forming a
system for electrically connecting modules for a vehicle power storage unit
wherein the module has a spring loaded clip terminal as required by the
subject matter of claim l?2
After review of the Examiner’s rejection3 and Appellants’ arguments,
we sustain the rejections for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We add
the following.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness because Winch does not have an electrical connection that
can be inadvertently disconnected and need to reduce its electrical contact
resistance. Appellants specifically argue “Winch’s jumper clip already
cannot be inadvertently removed, and electrical contact resistance, within the
context of a snap-on locking surface, does not appear to be problematic.”
(App. Br. 3). Appellants argue the Examiner has done nothing more than
cobble together the features of four references and not provided an
explanation which features to combine. (App. Br. 4).
The arguments presented by Appellants are substantially the same as
those presented in the previous appeal 2012-011143.
2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Appellants have limited
their arguments to claim 1 and have not presented substantive arguments
addressing the subject matter of dependent claims 2, 5—8, 10, 15—17, and 21
or separately rejected claim 9.
3 The Examiner’s statement of rejection appears on pages 4—11 of the Final
Office Action.
3
Appeal 2016-002354
Application 11/855,497
Evidence of a suggestion, teaching or motivation to combine may
flow from the references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved. See Pro-Mold &
Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Appellants have not disputed that electrical connector assembly comprising
spring loaded clip terminals was known to persons of ordinary skill in the
art. (See Briefs generally, Pavlovic and Nakayama). The Examiner found
Winch discloses a system for electrically connecting modules of a battery
system, comprising a spring loaded clip type electrical bus and not a spring
loaded clip. (Final Act. 5—6; Winch col. 4,11. 56-68). The Examiner
correctly found that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art to substitute known means of connecting a terminal bus. (Final
Act. 6). “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
obvious.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (quoting
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Appellants’ arguments are premised on the physical incorporation of
spring-loaded clip terminals in the invention of Winch. Contrary to
Appellants’ position, it is not necessary to physical incorporate the spring-
loaded clip terminals as described by Pavlovic and Nakayama in the
invention of Winch to render obvious the claimed invention. See In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 859 [225 USPQ 1] (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions that
Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the
criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but
4
Appeal 2016-002354
Application 11/855,497
whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the
prior art as a whole.”). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); see also
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically
combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); In re Nievelt,
482 F.2d 965, 968, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures.”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that a spring loaded clip terminal would have been a suitable
replacement for jumper clip assembly. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized the suitability of forming a system for
electrically connecting modules for a vehicle power storage unit wherein the
module has a spring loaded clip terminal from the combined teachings of
Winch, Pavlovic, Asaka, and Nakayama.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented in the Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5—10, 15—17, and 21.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—10, 15—17, and 21 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).
AFFIRMED
5