Ex Parte WANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

15076732 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/076,732 03/22/2016
46442 7590 10/01/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y ongcai WANG
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.
83652462; 67186-064PUS2 2157
EXAMINER
SWENSON, BRIAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONGCAI WANG,
RAJARAM SUBRAMANIAN, and SARA V ANAN P ARAMASIV AM
Appeal2018-002419
Application 15/07 6,732
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LEE L. STEPINA, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-002419
Application 15/076,732
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § I34(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated April 21,
2017 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "an electrified vehicle, and more
particularly, but not exclusively, to a rail assembly for use with a battery
array." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 17 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A battery array, comprising:
a rail that supports a battery cell; and
a tie bracket connected to said rail and configured to limit
travel of said rail, said tie bracket including a first face secured
to a first portion of said rail, a second face transverse to said first
face and secured to a second, different portion of said rail, and a
stiffener wall that connects diagonally between said first face
and said second face.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Hayano
Paramasivam
Balk
US 8,893,843 B2
US 2012/0175320 Al
US 2013/0032681 Al
Nov. 25, 2014
July 12, 2012
Feb. 7,2013
Ford Global Technologies, Inc. ("Appellant") is the applicant pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief, dated September 20, 2017 ("Br."), at 1.
2
Appeal2018-002419
Application 15/076,732
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-13 and 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Paramasivam and Hayano.
2. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paramasivam, Hayano, and Balk.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 1-13 and 16-22
as Unpatentable Over Paramasivam and Hayano
Appellant argues claims 1-13 and 16-22 as a group. Br. 3---6. We
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-13 and
16-22 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that the combination of the teachings of
Paramasivam and Hayano discloses the limitations in claims 1-13 and 16-
22. Figure A is presented below:
3
Appeal2018-002419
Application 15/076,732
48
Final Act. 3. Figure A is the Examiner's annotated Figure 6 of
Paramasivam, in which the Examiner labels certain structures to illustrate his
findings. The Examiner finds that
[Paramasivam's] "brackets 60 stiffen the rail 456 and help to
resist deformation." Resisting deformation is taken to be limiting
travel of the rail.) Paramasivam et al. further teaches the tie
bracket (60) includes a first face (see where element 60 is located
in Figure 6) secured to a first portion (see annotation A, below)
of the rail, a second face ( the portion of the bracket that is
coplanar with lower member 58) secured to a second portion (see
annotation B, below) of the rail transverse to the first face.
Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner finds that Hayano discloses wall 30 that diagonally
connects first face 35 and second face 36, and that "inherently acts as a
4
Appeal2018-002419
Application 15/076,732
stiffener between the first and second faces." Final Act. 3. The Examiner's
annotated Figure 3 of Hayano is presented below:
Figure B.· Annotated Figure 3 jor U.S. Patent No. 8,893,843 issued to Hayano.
The Examiner finds that "annotation D is shown to connect diagonally
between a first face ( annotation E) and second face ( annotation F) for the
bracket." Ans. 9--10.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous for
several reasons. First, Appellant asserts that Paramasivam's "bracket 60 is
secured at location B but disagrees that it is also secured at location A of the
rail 46." Br. 3. According to Appellant, "there is no teaching that the
brackets 60 are welded or otherwise secured to the upper portion 57 of the
rail 46." Id.
5
Appeal2018-002419
Application 15/076,732
We disagree. As the Examiner correctly finds, claim 1 does not recite
that the brackets are welded to the rail. Ans. 8. We also agree with the
Examiner that Paramasivam teaches that brackets 60 are secured to the upper
portion of the rail:
3 5. "Brackets, such as the brackets 60 may also be press
fit between the upper and lower portions 57, 59, an adhesive may
be used to hold them in place, or they may be otherwise attached
by any effective means."
36. Press fitting the bracket between the upper and lower
portion 57, 59 is a mechanical connection that secures the bracket
relative to portion 57. [Paramasivam's] further suggestion that
"an adhesive may be used" is a further means for securing the
bracket (60) relative to the upper and lower portions (57, 58).
Ans. 9 (quoting Paramasivam ,r 26). Appellant's argument does not identify
error by the Examiner.
Second, Appellant argues that Hayano does not cure these deficiencies
of Paramasivam. Br. 5. Because we find that Paramasivam discloses a
bracket secured to the rail as recited in the claims, Appellant's argument
regarding Paramasivam's alleged deficiencies is not persuasive.
Br. 5.
Third, Appellant argues that:
The wall 30 of Hayano is not a stiffener wall that connects
"diagonally" between first and second faces. As described at
column 4, lines 2-62 of Hayano, feature 30 is a "protector" that
extends over a comer portion of a case of the inverter 20 to cover
the comer of the inverter 20. In other words, the protector 30 is
nothing more than a bent section of a bracket. Thus, the protector
30 neither "stiffens" the tie bracket nor does it connect diagonally
between the first and second faces of the alleged bracket. The
protector 30 spans across an outer surface at a comer of an
inverter 20 but does not extend diagonally between any bracket
faces.
6
Appeal2018-002419
Application 15/076,732
In response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner explains that
[Hayano's] wall (30; annotation D) inherently acts as a stiffener
by bracing the first and second faces. This is an old and
notoriously well-known mechanical method, where the
connection between two perpendicular members (such as
portions A and B in Figure A above) can be stiffened by adding
a member ( wall D as taught by Hayano in Figure B above) that
extends diagonally (located where the hash marks for annotation
C are shown in Figure A above) between the perpendicular
members.
Ans. 10. Hayano's use of different terminology for element 30 (i.e.,
protector 30) does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's finding that
Hayano's diagonal wall (i.e., face Din Figure B above) inherently acts as a
stiffener wall between faces E and F. Ans. 2; In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining there is no ipsisimis verbis test for determining
whether a reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of terminology is
not required). Because Appellant does not address the Examiner's finding
that it is old and well-known that face D inherently acts a stiffener wall
between faces E and F, Appellant does not identify Examiner error.
Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner's rationale for combining
Paramasivam and Hayano (i.e., "to increase the stiffness of the bracket,
which would be advantageous to resist deformation") is "completely
speculative" because the Examiner does not explain "how the proposed
modification would actually achieve such a stiffness increase," or "how the
bent section 30 of Hayano would be incorporated into the bracket of
Paramasivam to achieve these alleged advantages." Br. 6. We disagree.
The Examiner provided sufficient explanation in the Final Action (page 4,
paragraph 8) and the Answer (page 10, paragraphs 41--46). Appellant's
argument is not persuasive.
7
Appeal2018-002419
Application 15/076,732
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Appellant
does not argue claims 2-13 and 16-22 apart from claim 1. We further
sustain the rejection of claims 2-13 and 16-22, which fall with claim 1.
Rejection 2: Claims 14 and 15
as Unpatentable Over Paramasivam, Hayano, and Balk
In response to the Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 15, Appellant
asserts that "[f]or at least the reasons noted above [in Rejection 1], the
proposed modification of Paramasivam in view of Hayano fails to render
any claim obvious. The addition of Balk fails to cure these deficiencies and
therefore claims 14 and 15 are also not obvious." Br. 6. Because we are not
apprised of Examiner error in the rejections of claims 1-13 and 16-22,
Appellant's argument is not persuasive.
Appellant also asserts that the rejection of claim 15 is erroneous. Br.
15. Claim 15 requires that "said stiffener wall diagonally extends diagonally
from a first edge of said first face to a second edge of said second face."
Appellant asserts that the "stiffener wall 8 of Balk does not extend from a
'first edge' of a first face to a 'second edge' of a second face of a bracket.
As shown in Figure IA, the alleged stiffener wall 8 extends between mid-
points of the faces rather than between edges of the faces." Br. 7.
In response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner explains that
"annotation C in Figure A ... is shown to extend diagonally from the first
edge of the first face to the second edge of the second face." Ans. 11.
Because Appellant does not address the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner, Appellant does not identify error by the Examiner.
Thus, the rejection of claims 14 and 15 is sustained.
8
Appeal2018-002419
Application 15/076,732
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 are
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9