FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

14329461 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020)

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.
14/329,461 07/11/2014 Eric Poirier 83450207;
67186-103 PUS1
4523
46442 7590 03/31/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
KEBEDE, TESSEMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2020 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 ERIC POIRIER

Appeal 2019-003197
Application 14/329,461
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003197
Application 14/329,461

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to an inspection aid which includes a
label having a temperature responsive portion that indicates temperature
changes in the battery cell, and a strain responsive portion that indicates
positional changes and a method of inspecting a battery (Spec. ¶ 3; Claims 1,
24).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An inspection aid, comprising:
a label secured to an outwardly facing surface of a
battery cell, the label having a temperature responsive portion
that indicates temperature changes of the battery cell, and a
strain responsive portion that indicates positional changes.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–3, 6–9, 12–16 and 18–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hostetter (US 2013/0193976 A1
published August 1, 2013) in view of De Jesus (US
2009/0192731 A1 published July 30, 2009), and Lovelace (US
2014/0370344 A1 published December 18, 2014).
2. Claims 5, 10, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hostetter in view of De Jesus, Lovelace and
Goto (US 2012/0148890 A1 published June 14, 2012).

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. §103
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the § 103
rejection of independent claims 1 and 24 over Hostetter in view of De Jesus
and Lovelace are located on pages 3 to 5 of the Final Action. The Examiner
Appeal 2019-003197
Application 14/329,461

3
finds that Hostetter teaches a label having a temperature responsive portion
that indicates temperature of the battery cell (Final Act. 3). The Examiner
finds that Hostetter does not teach that an inspection aid having a strain
responsive portion indicates positional changes or the label is secured to the
outwardly facing surface of a battery cell (Final Act. 3, 4). The Examiner
finds that De Jesus teaches an inspection aid using a strain responsive
portion that may include 2D or 3D or QR (quick response) codes (Final Act.
3-4). The Examiner finds that Lovelace teaches securing a label to an
outwardly facing surface of a battery (Final Act. 4). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to:
modify a label with thermochromic ink to detect temperature
change that is viewed as color change as a quality control
teaching in Hostetter, and incorporate a label as a target device
which may include barcode or barcode like symbols, examples,
2D or 3D barcodes, Data Matrix symbols (DMS), QR (quick
response) code etc., where the 2D barcode is a DMS symbol
210 is placed under a stress and strain in two dimensions, the
markings deform with the material it is associated with to form
an altered symbol 220 (i.e., due to positional changes) teaching
of De Jesus and further include a battery casing is partially
covered with a label that may include a QR code with adhesive
layer in a designated area to provide information on battery
status to a user teaching of Lovelace in order to detect
abnormality of a secondary battery (for e.g.) which can further
indicate the remaining service life of the battery and enhance
regulating the charging of the battery to improve battery safe
operation.
(Final Act. 5).
Appellant argues that Hostetter does not teach a label with a
temperature responsive portion that indicates temperature changes of battery
cell as recited in claims 1 and 12 (Appeal Br. 3). Appellant argues that
Appeal 2019-003197
Application 14/329,461

4
Hostetter’s thermochromic ink layer 44 is activated in response to a
temperature change in the voltage indicator device 10 that is outside the
battery 50, not by a temperature change in the battery 50 (Appeal Br. 3).
Appellant argues that Hostetter’s thermochromic ink layer identifies changes
in battery voltage (Appeal Br. 3). Appellant contends that if Hostetter’s
thermochromic ink layer is an indication of the temperature of the battery
cell then it would not function as a reliable indicator of battery voltage
(Appeal Br. 3).
Hostetter discloses that the thermochromic ink layer is activated by
the resistive heating element provided in voltage indicator (¶ 3). The heat
causes the thermochromic ink to change from a dark color (black) to a
transparent or clear color thereby revealing a color underneath the
thermochromic ink, which is indicative of the battery voltage level (¶ 3).
Hostetter uses an insulating layer to thermally insulate the battery from the
resistor circuit (i.e., the voltage indicator with thermochromic layer) (¶ 4,
18). Hostetter discloses two embodiments of the voltage indicator (¶ 15).
The first embodiment has thermochromic ink layer incorporated into the
voltage indicator device and a reveal color is applied under the
thermochromic layer, both of which are aligned with a clear or transparent
window in the label (¶ 15). In the second embodiment the shrink label 40
has a thermochromic ink layer 44 and a color reveal ink layer 46 printed on
the label as shown in Appellant’s Figure 1B (¶ 15). In the second
embodiment the thermochromic layer may be part of the label with the
voltage indicator aligned on the label to allow for effective thermal
activation (¶ 15).
Based on Hostetter’s disclosures, the Examiner’s finding that “the
Appeal 2019-003197
Application 14/329,461

5
thermochromic layer is applied by a roll printing process and may be part of
the voltage indicator OR thermochromic layer” does not fully represent
Hostetter’s disclosure. Hostetter’s second embodiment may include
thermochromic layer as part of the label, but Hostetter discloses that the
voltage indicator is aligned on the label to allow for effective thermal
activation (¶ 15). In other words, Hostetter’s thermochromic layer on the
label is activated by the heat generated by the voltage indicator, not heat
from the battery cell. As Appellant points out Hostetter uses an insulator
material (e.g., insulating ink layer 28, 32) to thermally insulate the resistor
and heat generating function of the conductor from the thermal heat sink
(i.e., the battery) (¶¶ 4, 12, 18). Because Hostetter’s device is structured to
isolate thermally the battery cell from the thermochromic layer of the
voltage indicator, we find that the Examiner has not shown that Hostetter’s
device is structurally the same as that required by claim 1. In other words,
because there is a structural difference (i.e., Hostetter’s thermally insulating
ink layer 28) between the claims and Hostetter, the Examiner has not shown
that Hostetter’s device would be capable of performing the indication of
temperature changes of the battery cell using the thermochromic layer. See,
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“There is no dispute
that the structural limitations recited in Schreiber's application are all found
in the Harz reference upon which the examiner and the Board relied.”).
Method claim 24 requires the step of detecting temperature changes of
a battery cell based on a thermochromatic material of a label changing color.
Hostetter thermally isolates the thermochromic layer and voltage indicator
from the battery cell using an insulator material 28 and would have
prevented the operation of the claimed method. Claim 24 further recites that
Appeal 2019-003197
Application 14/329,461

6
the label is adhesively secured directly to a surface of a metallic case of the
battery cell. This direct securing appears to be different than Hostetter’s
thermal insulation of the thermochromic layer from the battery cell.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
1–3, 6–9, 12–16, and 18–24 over Hostetter in view of De Jesus and
Lovelace. We reverse the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 5, 10, 11, and
17 over Hostetter in view of De Jesus, Lovelace, and Goto for the same
reasons discussed above.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Prior Art Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–9, 12–16,
18–24
103 Hostetter,
De Jesus,
Lovelace
1–3, 6–9, 12–16,
18–24
5, 10, 11, 17 103 Hostetter,
De Jesus,
Lovelace,
Goto
5, 10, 11, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–24

REVERSED