FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

2019005151 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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.
14/336,418 07/21/2014 Asif Iqbal 83454394;
67186-107 PUS1
8441
46442 7590 07/02/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
ZENG, LINGWEN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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 ASIF IQBAL, DANIEL MILLER, and
JAMES LAWRENCE SWOISH
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–15, 20, 23, 25, and 28–37. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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, which is ultimately owned by Ford Motor Company.
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed February 14, 2019, 1.
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

2
We AFFIRM IN PART.2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vented battery pack device having a
conduit to communicate fluid vented from a battery cell along a non-linear
vent path. Appeal Br., Claims App’x, 18–20. Appellant discloses that, from
time to time, gas within the interior of the cells of a battery, such as lithium
ion batteries, can undesirably expand, necessitating venting of the cells.
Spec. ¶ 2. The vented gas is then directed outside of the vehicle. Id. The
invention provides a non-linear vent path for the vented gas. Id. ¶ 3.
Appellant further discloses that the vent path may be provided by a conduit
that is integrated within an end plate of the battery pack to reduce
complexity, part requirements, and assembly steps. Id. ¶ 61.
Claim 9, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. The limitation at issue is
italicized.
9. A battery pack device, comprising:
a conduit compressing against a battery cell array, the
conduit to communicate fluid that is vented from an interior of a
battery cell within the battery cell array along a non-linear vent
path, the conduit including an inlet that opens to a vent chamber
of the battery cell array.
Independent claims 28 and 35 similarly recite battery pack devices
comprising a conduit “compressing directly against” the battery cell array

2 This Decision also cites to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed July 21, 2014,
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated May 23, 2019, and the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed June 24, 2019.
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

3
(claim 28) or “compressed against” an array of battery cells (claim 35),
wherein the conduit provides a non-linear vent path.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Sheridan US 3,633,586 Jan. 11, 1972
Kimoto et al. (“Kimoto”) US 6,278,259 B1 Aug. 21, 2001
Murata US 2010/0009244 A1 Jan. 14, 2010

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 9–11, 20, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, and 36 as unpatentable
over Kimoto;
2. Claims 12, 13, 15, 25, 34, and 37 as unpatentable over Kimoto in
view of Murata;
3. Claim 14 as unpatentable over Kimoto in view of Murata, and
further in view of Sheridan;
4. Claim 30 as unpatentable over Kimoto in view of Sheridan; and
5. Claim 31 as unpatentable over Kimoto in view of Sheridan, and
further in view of Murata.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

4
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejections, except as otherwise indicated
below. We offer the following for emphasis only.
For purposes of this appeal, to the extent that the claims on appeal are
separately argued, we will address them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Rejection 1: Obviousness over Kimoto
The Examiner rejects claims 9–11, 20, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, and 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kimoto. A complete statement
of this rejection is set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 3–9.
Claims 9, 23, and 35
Appellant does not argue claims 9, 23, and 35 separately, but instead
relies solely on arguments raised against the rejection of claim 9. Appeal Br.
9, 11. Therefore, claims 23 and 35 stand or fall with claim 9.
The Examiner finds that Kimoto teaches a battery module comprising
a conduit (external discharge tube) 18 supported on end plate 3 by
supporting clip 20, wherein end plate 3 compresses against battery cells 2
such that conduit 18 is pressing against the battery array, i.e., indirectly
compresses against the array. Ans. 3–4. The Examiner further finds Kimoto
teaches that gas vented from battery cells 2 is discharge along discharge gas
tubes 17 to conduit 18 providing a non-linear vent path. Id. at 3. The
Examiner finds that claim 9 fails to define or recite any degree of
compressing, and that “compressing against” does not require physical
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

5
contact between the conduit and the battery cell array. Id. at 19. Kimoto,
Figure 3, illustrates a battery pack device and is reproduced below:

Kimoto, Fig. 3, is an oblique view of the battery pack device
Appellant argues that Kimoto fails to teach conduit 18 “compressing
against a battery cell array” as required by claim 9. Appeal Br. 3–8.
Appellant asserts that Application Figure 2 shows battery cell arrays 30 are
axially compressed between endplates 38. Id. at 3. Appellant further asserts
that Application Figures 5 and 6 show that endplates can include the claimed
conduit. Id. at 4. Appellant contends that Kimoto’s conduit 18 is coupled to
end plates 3 via supporting clip 20 and thus is “separate and distinct” from
end plates 3. Id. (emphasis omitted). Therefore, Appellant argues that a
skilled person would not interpret Kimoto’s conduit 18 as indirectly
compressing against the battery cell array. Id. at 5.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Initially, we note that Appellant urges that
nowhere has Appellant asserted that “compressing against” requires physical
contact between the conduit and the battery cell array. Appeal Br. 7.
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

6
Appellant, nonetheless, contends that Kimoto is not teaching the conduit 18
being compressed against the battery cell array. Id. As such, Appellant
contends that the Examiner’s interpretation of “compressing against” is
incorrect, yet fails to offer any alternative interpretation or direct our
attention to any definition in the Specification.
It is well established that “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). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to
narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Id.
The Specification discloses five instances describing either a wall
(end plate 38) or a conduit compressing or compressing against battery cell
array 30: 1) “the wall compresses a battery cell array” (Spec. ¶ 8); 2) “a
conduit compressing against a battery cell array” (id. ¶ 11); 3) “compressing
the battery cell array with the plate” (id. ¶ 20); 4) “each end plate 38
compresses axially against the ends of two different arrays 30” (id. ¶ 41);
and 5) “[t]he conduit compresses cells of the battery pack” (id. ¶ 61). None
of these disclosures provides a definition for “compresses against” as used in
claim 9. Nonetheless, we note that the Specification and drawings describe
the end plates axially compressing the battery cell array and that the conduit
may be within the end plates. Further, although Appellant asserts that
Figures 5 and 6 show that endplates can include the claimed conduit, this
feature is not recited in claim 9. Indeed, this feature is instead recited in, for
example, claim 10. Where a feature is recited in a dependent claim, we will
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

7
not read that feature into the independent claim. Therefore, consistent with
Appellant’s disclosure, we note that the conduit can either be carried by or
integrated within the end plates.
We further note that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
“compress” is “to press or squeeze together”3 or “to press together; force
into less space.”4 Neither of these definitions require actual physical contact
between the actor and the object. Accordingly, we interpret “compresses
against,” as used in claim 9, to mean that the conduit can either be carried by
or integrated within the end plates.
Applying this definition to the issue before us, we determine that
Kimoto’s teaching of a conduit carried by the end plates, wherein the end
plates axially compress the battery cell array meets the limitation of “a
conduit compressing against a battery cell array.” Accordingly, Appellant
has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 9 over Kimoto.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and further requires that the conduit
is a first plate at an axial end of the array, and the array is axially
compressed between the first plate and a second plate.
The Examiner acknowledges that Kimoto fails to teach that conduit 18
is a plate, yet determines that it would have been obvious to integrate
conduit 18 into end plate 3 “since it has been held to be within the general

3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compress, last visited on
June 25, 2020.
4 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/compress, last visited on June 25,
2020.
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

8
skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of
engineering design choice.” Ans. 4 (citing In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968
(CCPA 1965) and In re Lockhart, 190 F.2d 208, 210 (CCPA 1951)).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Kimoto
overlooks that conduit 18, via clip 20, is intended to be moveable relative to
end plate 3. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that such a modification
would render Kimoto’s structure unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id.
at 9.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to integrate
Kimoto’s conduit 18 into end plate 3. The Examiner fails to respond to this
argument, as to claim 10. See Ans. 19, ¶ A. Initially, we interpret the
limitation “the conduit is a first plate” to mean that the conduit is integrated
within the first plate. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification
which, as explained above, teaches the conduit may be integrated within the
plate. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 61.
We note that, consistent with Appellant’s argument, there is no
suggestion or motivation to make a proposed modification if doing so would
render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d
1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he ‘predictable result’ discussed in [KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)] refers not only to the
expectation that prior art elements are capable of being physically combined,
but also that the combination would have worked for its intended purpose.”);
see also In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, Kimoto
attaches conduit 18 to end plate 3 via clip 20 so as to provide for relative
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

9
movement therebetween. As Appellant contends, making Kimoto’s conduit
18 integral with end plate 3 would prevent this relative movement rendering
Kimoto’s structure unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
We further note Larson concerned a claim to a fluid transporting
vehicle that was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference, wherein the
claim differed from the reference in reciting a brake drum integral with a
clamping means, whereas the reference’s brake disc and clamp comprised
several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The Larson court
affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one
piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would
be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” Larson, 340 F.2d at 968.
In contrast, Kimoto’s parts are not rigidly secured together, but intentionally
assembled to permit relative movement between conduit 18 and end plate 3.
In addition, Lockhart concerned a claim to a hypodermic syringe that
was rejected as obvious over a combination of prior art references, wherein
the claim differed from the reference by, among other things, making
integral several parts taught to be separately screw-attachable in the
references. The Lockhart court, while acknowledging that under some
circumstances making integral that which was separate before may be
patentable, affirmed the rejection because such integration involved no more
than mere mechanical skill. Lockhart, 190 F.2d at 210. Again, in contrast to
Lockhart, Kimoto’s parts are not merely secured together, but are instead
assembled to permit relative movement between conduit 18 and end plate 3.
In contrast, we note Carl Schenck, A.G. v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d
782 (Fed. Cir. 1983) arrived at a result consistent with Appellant’s argument
and opposite to Larson and Lockhart. Schenck involved claims directed to a
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

10
vibratory testing machine comprising a holding structure, a base structure,
and a supporting means which together formed “a single integral and
gaplessly continuous piece.” Schenck, 713 F.2d at 784–86. Although
Nortron argued that the invention merely makes integral that which had been
made in four bolted pieces, the Schenck court disagreed because there was a
perceived need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor
eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support
structure. Id. Like Schenck, Kimoto teaches a need for a connection between
conduit 18 and end plate 3 permitting relative movement therebetween,
whereas claim 10 eliminates such a flexible connection.
Accordingly, Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 10 over Kimoto.
Claims 11 and 32
Claim 11 depends from claim 9, and further requires a foot extending
from the conduit. Claim 32 depends from claim 9, and further requires a vent
chamber and battery cell array, wherein the battery cells include vent
openings that selectively communicate fluid from the cells to the chamber.
Appellant does not argue these claims separately, but instead relies solely on
arguments raised against the rejection of claim 11. Appeal Br. 10. Therefore,
claim 32 stands or falls with claim 11.
The Examiner finds that Kimoto teaches a foot extending from
conduit 18 because a “foot” means any portion of an object at its bottom and
Kimoto teaches a drain hose 19 extending from conduit 18. Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of “foot” is
unreasonable and inconsistent with the Specification. Appeal Br. 9.
However, this argument is not persuasive of reversible error because
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

11
Appellant fails to explain with any particularity why the Examiner’s finding
that Kimoto’s drain hose 19 is not a foot extending from conduit 18.
Appellant neither offers an alternative interpretation nor directs our attention
to a definition in the Specification.
Accordingly, Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 32 over Kimoto.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from 9, and further requires that the conduit is a
plate providing an axially outermost portion of the battery cell array.
The Examiner finds that Kimoto teaches that conduit 18 is supported
on end plate 3 by supporting clip 20, wherein end plate 3 provides an axially
outermost portion of the battery cell array. Ans. 5. Similarly to claim 10, the
Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to have
integrated conduit 18 with end plate 3. Id. at 20 (citing Larson and Schenck
supra).
Appellant argues that a skilled person would not incorporate conduit
18 into end plate 3 because conduit 18 requires flexibility to accommodate
relative movement between the conduit and end plate 3. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant also relies on the same arguments raised against the rejection of
claim 10. Id.
For the same reasons given above with regard to claim 10, we
likewise agree with Appellant that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that it would have been obvious to integrate conduit 18 into end
plate 3.

Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

12
Claim 28
Independent claim 28 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
to the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
28. A battery pack device, comprising:
a conduit compressing directly against a battery cell array
and adapted to communicate gas that is vented from the battery
cell array along a vent path that extends non-linearly between an
inlet opening and an outlet opening.
The issue presented with regard to claim 28, whether Appellant has
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Kimoto
teaches conduit 18 directly compresses against the battery array, is similar to
the issue presented with regard to claim 9 above. As with claim 9, we note
that because dependent claim 29 recites that the conduit is a plate, i.e., the
conduit is integrated into the end plate, which is disclosed to be the structure
which compresses the battery array, we will not read this limitation into
claim 28. As such, claim 28 does not require that the conduit is integrated
into the plate. Given this interpretation, we interpret “compresses against” to
include any structure carried by the end plate.
However, unlike claim 9, we must interpret “directly” within the
context “compresses directly against.” Again, we note that although
Appellant criticizes the Examiner’s interpretation of this limitation,
Appellant neither offers an alternative interpretation nor directs our attention
to any definition in the Specification, nor do we find any. Indeed, the
Specification does not even use the term “directly,” and as explained above,
claim 28 does not require that the conduit is integrated into the plate.
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

13
We note the term “directly” may mean either “[w]ithout changing
direction or stopping” or “[w]ith nothing or no one in between.”5 Thus, the
second definition requires actual physical contact between the conduit and
the battery array and is consistent with the conduit being integrated into the
plate. However, the first definition merely requires that the conduit be
carried by the end plate which compresses the battery array without
changing direction. This second definition is consistent with Kimoto. It
follows, therefore, that Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 28 over Kimoto.
Claim 29
Claim 29 depends from claim 28, and further requires that the conduit
is a plate and that the vent path includes first and second sections that are
transverse to each other.
Similarly to claim 10 above, the Examiner acknowledges that Kimoto
fails to teach that conduit 18 is a plate, yet determines that it would have
been obvious to integrate conduit 18 into end plate 3 “since it has been held
to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts
unitary as a matter of engineering design choice.” Ans. 4 (citing Larson, 340
F.2d at 968 and Lockhart, 190 F.2d at 210).
Appellant relies on the same arguments raised against claim 10, which
we found persuasive of reversible error. Thus, for the same reasons as set
forth above for claim 10, Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 29 over Kimoto.

5 https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/directly, last visited June 26, 2020.
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

14
Claims 33 and 36
Claim 33 depends from claim 32, and claim 36 depends from claim
35. Each of claims 33 and 36 further requires a membrane covering the vent
opening and configured to open in response to fluid expansion within the
battery cell.
The Examiner finds that Kimoto’s valve cover 13 reads on a
membrane because cover 13 functions the same as the recited membrane.
Ans. 7, 9. Appellant argues that this finding is erroneous because Kimoto’s
valve cover 13 is not a membrane and does not have the same functionality
and structural location as a membrane. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant submits a
definition of a membrane as meaning “a ‘thin soft pliable sheet or layer
especially of animal or plant origin’ or a ‘piece of parchment forming part of
a roll.’” Id.
The Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s proffered definition of
“membrane,” nor does the Examiner find that Kimoto’s valve cover 13 is
encompassed by this definition. Instead, the Examiner’s finding is based on
the functional similarities between Kimoto’s valve cover 13 and the claimed
membrane. However, merely because two structures function similarly or
the same does not mean that those two structures are necessarily the same.
Accordingly, Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 33 and 36 over Kimoto.
Rejection 2: Obviousness over Kimoto and Murata
Claims 12, 13, 15, 25, 34, and 37 as unpatentable over Kimoto in view
of Murata. A complete statement of this rejection is set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 9–15.
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

15
Claims 12 and 13
Claim 12 depends from claim 11, and further requires that the foot
provides a first perimeter portion of a second vent path and interfaces with a
cold plate providing a second perimeter portion of the second vent path, and
the cold plate disposed adjacent the battery cell array in order to take on
thermal energy directly from the array.
The Examiner acknowledges that Kimoto fails to teach the limitations
of claim 12, but finds that Murata teaches a battery module for a vehicle
comprising a foot (gas discharging pipe) 15 for discharging gas from the
battery module to the outside of the vehicle. Ans. 9–10. The Examiner
further finds that Murata’s separation labyrinth chamber 17 is formed by a
first perimeter portion of a second vent path (an upper portion of foot 15)
and a cold plate providing a second perimeter portion of the second vent
path (coolant storage portion 172). Id. at 10. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Kimoto with a separation labyrinth
chamber formed by Kimoto’s foot 19 and a cold plate “to ensure the
prevention of the electrolytic solution from being discharged outside the
vehicle.” Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale for the modification of
Kimoto in view of Murata is erroneous because the Examiner has not shown
that Kimoto discloses electrolytic solution ever being conveyed through the
drain hose. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also argues that Murata fails to teach
that foot 15 provides a first perimeter portion of a second vent path and the
coolant storage portion 172 provides a second perimeter portion of the
second vent path, contrary to the Examiner’s finding otherwise. Id. at 13.
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

16
Instead, Appellant asserts that the perimeter of any vent path in Murata is
formed entirely by foot 15 or entirely by coolant storage portion 172. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error in both the
Examiner’s findings regarding Murata and the rationale for modifying
Kimoto in view of Murata. We note that the Examiner fails to respond to
Appellant’s arguments discussed above. See Ans. 21–22 (responding only to
Appellant’s additional argument that Murata’s coolant storage portion 172 is
not a cold plate as recited in claim 12). Murata discloses that the problem
associated with electrolyte solution escaping from the battery module occurs
because the module is bathed in coolant 23 and, when an abnormality
occurs, electrolytic solution can be discharged along with coolant 23. Murata
¶ 78. As Appellant argues, the Examiner does not direct attention to any
disclosure in Kimoto of either a coolant or electrolytic solution being
discharged into conduit 18 or foot 19, nor do we find any. Moreover, the
Examiner does not direct attention to any disclosure in Murata of a vent path
formed by a first perimeter portion provided by the foot and a second
perimeter portion provided by the coolant storage portion.
Accordingly, Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 12 over Kimoto and Murata. We,
therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 12. We likewise do not
sustain the rejection of claim 13 which depends from claim 12.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 9, and further requires that the foot
extends from the conduit opposite the array, and the foot interfaces with a
cold plate disposed adjacent the battery cell array in order to take on thermal
energy directly from the array.
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

17
The Examiner acknowledges that Kimoto in view of Murata fails to
teach a cold plate disposed directly adjacent the battery cell array such that
the cold plate can take on thermal energy from the battery cell array, but
concludes that it would have been obvious to locate the cold plate adjacent
the array “since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention
involves only routine skill in the art.” Ans. 12. The Examiner also finds that
locating Murata’s cold plate (coolant storage portion 172) adjacent the array
would provide the same function as recited in claim 15. Id.
Appellant argues Murata’s foot 15 does not interface with any cold
plate and coolant storage portion 172 is not a cold plate. Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant asserts that Murata’s coolant storage portion 172 simply stores
coolant. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner interprets Murata’s coolant storage portion 172 as a cold plate
because it provides at least a surface for absorbing heat, i.e., thermal energy,
from gas discharged from the battery, which means that portion 172 takes on
thermal energy from the battery. Ans. 21. In addition, the Examiner notes
that “adjacent” does not require any physical contact between the cold plate
and the array. Id. Appellant fails to respond to, or otherwise address either of
these interpretations. Nor does Appellant respond to the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to relocate Murata’s portion 172
adjacent to the array. Accordingly, Appellant has not identified reversible
error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 15 over Kimoto in
view of Murata.

Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

18
Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 9, and further requires a plate
comprising a wall and a foot extending from a vertical bottom portion of the
wall, wherein the wall compresses the array and the foot interfaces with a
cold plate.
The Examiner acknowledges that Kimoto fails to teach a foot
interfacing with a cold plate, but finds that Murata teaches a coolant storage
portion 172 interfacing with foot (gas discharging pipe) 15. Ans. 12–13. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified
Kimoto such that foot 19 interfaces with a cold plate (coolant storage
portion) as taught in Murata in order to trap electrolytic solution to prevent
its discharge from the vehicle. Id. at 13.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale for the modification of
Kimoto in view of Murata is erroneous because the Examiner has not shown
that Kimoto discloses electrolytic solution ever being conveyed through the
drain hose. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rationale for modifying Kimoto in view of Murata. We note that
the Examiner fails to respond to Appellant’s argument. See Ans. 21–22
(responding only to Appellant’s additional argument that Murata’s coolant
storage portion 172 is not a cold plate as recited in claim 12). Murata
discloses that the problem associated with electrolytic solution escaping
from the battery module occurs because the module is bathed in coolant 23
and, when an abnormality occurs, electrolytic solution can be discharged
along with coolant 23. Murata ¶ 78. As Appellant argues, the Examiner does
not direct attention to any disclosure in Kimoto of either a coolant or
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

19
electrolytic solution being discharged into conduit 18 or foot 19, nor do we
find any.
Accordingly, Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 25 over Kimoto and Murata.
Claims 34 and 37
Claim 34 depends from claim 28, and claim 37 depends from claim
35. Each of claims 34 and 37 further requires the outlet opening opens to a
fluid communication path exhausting gas to an exterior of a vehicle.
The Examiner finds that Murata teaches that gas from the battery is
exhausted to an exterior of a vehicle having the battery. Ans. 14, 15. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to exhaust gas from
Kimoto’s battery to an exterior of a vehicle having the battery as taught by
Murata. Id.
Appellant challenges the rejection of claims 34 and 37 on the basis of
the Examiner’s reasoning that doing so “would relieve the internal pressure
of the battery module.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant urges that exhausting gas
anywhere would relieve the internal pressure of the battery and, as such,
questions why a skilled person would exhaust gas to the exterior of the
vehicle. Id.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Appellant fails to
address the Examiner’s finding that Murata teaches exhausting gas from the
battery to the exterior of the vehicle. This finding alone provides reason to
relieve the internal pressure of the battery to the exterior of the vehicle.
Moreover, we note that Appellant discloses that venting gas from a battery
to the exterior of a vehicle is known. Spec. ¶ 2. Since Kimoto teaches that
the battery may be mounted in an electric vehicle, exhausting gas from the
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

20
battery to the exterior of the vehicle is both suggested by Murata (and taught
to be known by Appellant) and the most logical destination for these gases.
Accordingly, Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 34 and 37 over Kimoto in view of Murata.
Rejection 3: Obviousness over Kimoto, Murata, and Sheridan
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claims 12 and 13, the rejection of which,
based on a combination of Kimoto and Murata, Appellant identified
reversible error. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kimoto in view of Murata, and further in view of
Sheridan. However, the Examiner does not rely on Sheridan to remedy the
deficiencies in the combination of Kimoto and Murata discussed above.
Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
14 over Kimoto in view of Murata and Sheridan.
Rejections 4 and 5: Obviousness over Kimoto, Sheridan, and Murata
Claim 30
Claim 30 depends from claim 29, the rejection of which, based on
Kimoto alone, Appellant identified reversible error. The Examiner rejects
claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kimoto in view of
Sheridan. However, the Examiner does not rely on Sheridan to remedy the
deficiencies in the rejection based on Kimoto discussed above. Accordingly,
we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 over Kimoto
in view of Sheridan.

Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

21
Claim 31
Claim 31 depends from claims 29 and 30, the rejection of which,
based on Kimoto alone or in combination with Sheridan, Appellant
identified reversible error. The Examiner rejects claim 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kimoto in view of Sheridan, and further in view
of Murata. However, the Examiner does not rely on Murata to remedy the
deficiencies in the rejections based on Kimoto alone or combined with
Sheridan discussed above. Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 over Kimoto in view of Sheridan and
Murata.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9,
11, 15, 23, 28, 32, 34, 35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
However, for the reasons set forth above and in the Appeal and Reply
Briefs, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10, 12–14, 20, 25, 29–31,
33, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9–11, 20,
23, 28, 29,
32, 33, 35,
36
103 Kimoto 9, 11, 23,
28, 32, 35
10, 20, 29,
33, 36
12, 13, 15,
25, 34, 37
103 Kimoto, Murata 15, 34, 37 12, 13, 25
Appeal 2019-005151
Application 14/336,418

22
14 103 Kimoto, Murata,
Sheridan
14
30 103 Kimoto, Sheridan 30
31 103 Kimoto, Sheridan,
Murata
31
Overall
Outcome
9, 11, 15,
23, 28, 32,
34, 35, 37
10, 12–14,
20, 25, 29–
31, 33, 36

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART