Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020004895 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2021)

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.
15/819,578 11/21/2017 Eid Farha 83889871; 67186-468PUS1 3729
46442 7590 09/02/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
ZEMUI, NATHANAEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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 EID FARHA, HARI KRISHNA ADDANKI,
KEITH KEARNEY, and JEFFREY HAAG

Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–22, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Nov. 21, 2017
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Nov. 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed Jan. 9, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
dated Apr. 22, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed June 12, 2020
(“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a battery array assembly within a traction
battery, more particularly, an endplate that secures more than one array of
battery cells. Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification states electrified vehicles which
use electric machines to be driven may include battery packs having more
than one array of battery cells requiring multiple separate endplates to secure
the arrays. Id. ¶¶ 2–4. Appellant’s Figure 2 below shows endplates that span
at least a portion of two battery arrays at their axial ends. Id. ¶ 46.

Figure 2 above shows a battery assembly having battery cells in first and
second arrays 60, 68, thermal exchange plate 72, and first and second
endplates 76, 80. Spec. ¶¶ 43, 44, 46. The Specification describes the
endplates as “secured” to a side of the thermal exchange plate using
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

3
mechanical fasteners, such as threaded bolts. Id. ¶¶ 48, 49. According to the
Specification, securing the endplates to the thermal exchange plate can pull
the endplates closer axially together relative to each other to sandwich and
compress the battery cells. Id. ¶ 51.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis
added).
1. A battery assembly, comprising:
a first array of battery cells distributed along a first axis;
a second array of battery cells distributed along a second
axis laterally spaced from the first axis;
a thermal exchange plate disposed between the first and
second arrays; and
an endplate spanning across at least a portion of an
axially facing end of both the first and second array, the
endplate secured directly to an axially facing side of the
thermal exchange plate.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
Claims 11 and 21 are also independent claims pending in this Appeal
and similarly require a thermal exchange plate between first and second
arrays and directly securing an endplate to an axially facing side of the
thermal exchange plate. Id. at 13, 15.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–22 as follows for the
reasons provided in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 3–11.
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

4
Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s)
1–4, 6, 7, 11–
14, 16, 19, 20 103 Subramanian,
3 Lohr,4 Fees5
8–10, 17, 18,
21, 22 103
Subramanian, Lohr, Fees,
Subramanian ’7016
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)
(“[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 in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections. We address each of the rejections below.
Rejection of Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 11–14, 16, 19, and 20
The Examiner finds Subramanian discloses two battery arrays each
having an axis that is laterally spaced apart from one another and an endplate
spanning across at least a portion of an axially facing end of both the first
and second arrays. Final Act. 3 (citing Subramanian ¶ 122, Fig. 2 items 114,
116, 133 (connected endplates 124, 130). The Examiner finds Subramanian
is silent regarding a thermal exchanger plate and determines it would have
been obvious to modify Subramanian’s battery assembly with a thermal
exchange plate disposed between a first and second array of battery cells as

3 US 2016/0056426 A1, pub. Feb. 25, 2016.
4 US 2016/0315298 A1, pub. Oct. 27, 2016.
5 US 2018/0123201 A1, pub. May 3, 2018.
6 US 2016/0118701 A1, pub. Apr. 28, 2016.
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

5
taught by Lohr. Id. (citing Lohr ¶¶ 22, 24, 25, Figs. 2–5). The Examiner
finds Subramanian’s endplate is secured to the first and second arrays,
therefore, it would have been obvious to directly secure a common endplate
to an axially facing side of the thermal exchange plate in view of Lohr’s
structure having a substantially planar surface comprising the axial ends of
the first and second arrays and the thermal exchange plate. Id. at 4.
Regarding the inlet and outlet port of Lohr’s thermal exchange plate, the
Examiner finds it would have been obvious to include holes in a common
endplate to allow coolant to flow through the thermal exchange plate as
taught by Fees. Id. (citing Fees ¶ 66, Fig. 7a).
Appellant argues the rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 20.
Appeal Br. 4–8. We address each of Appellant’s arguments in turn.
Independent Claims 1 and 11
Regarding claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner provides no
reason having a rational underpinning for modifying Subramanian with the
thermal plate of Lohr because Subramanian already teaches thermal
regulation using a thermal management system. Appeal Br. 5 (citing
Subramanian ¶ 15). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error because
Appellant acknowledges Subramanian itself teaches the inclusion of a
thermal management system. Appellant does not adequately explain why a
person having ordinary skill in the art, following the direction of
Subramanian to include a thermal management system, would not have
considered Lohr’s thermal exchange plate a viable thermal management
system for Subramanian’s battery arrays, particularly in the absence of any
thermal management system specifications required by Subramanian. A
person having ordinary skill in the art “has good reason to pursue the known
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

6
options within his or her technical grasp” when there are predictable
identified solutions available. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007). Moreover, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 4), Lohr discloses a
thermal management system for regulating battery cells assembled in arrays
that are laterally spaced from each other which is similar to Subramanian’s
axially spaced battery cell arrays structure. Lohr Fig. 2. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s combination of Subramanian with Lohr, such that
Subramanian’s battery assembly is modified by disposing Lohr’s thermal
plate between Subramanian’s first and second arrays, is supported by the
record.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner provides no support for
Subramanian’s common endplate to be “secured directly to an axially facing
side” of a thermal exchange plate. Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted); Reply
Br. 1–2 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, Subramanian’s
common endplate is connected to side brackets and being placed against a
thermal exchange plate does not satisfy the claim requirement that the
endplate be “secured directly” to the thermal plate without reading “directly”
out of the claim. Appeal Br. 6–7 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error because Subramanian
teaches that individual or common endplates can have at least one
mechanical fastener for attaching the endplate to other structures in the
battery assembly, including fasteners having a threaded aperture.
Subramanian ¶¶ 25, 26, Fig. 2; Ans. 6. Lohr also teaches the use of fasteners
for attaching the thermal plate to other structures. Lohr ¶ 25; Ans. 6.
Moreover, Appellant’s Specification indicates that the connection technique
utilized to secure the endplate to the thermal plate is not critical to the
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

7
invention nor limited to known mechanical fasteners. Spec. ¶ 49 (“[O]ther
connection techniques could be utilized including, for example, welding the
first endplate . . . to the thermal exchange plate.”). In addition, the Examiner
notes that Lohr’s thermal plate is sandwiched between the first and second
arrays and would be restricted from movement in the horizontal direction,
therefore a skilled artisan would have recognized that Subramanian’s
fastener can help restrict movement of the thermal exchange plate in the
vertical direction. Ans. 6. Therefore, the Examiner’s determination that it
would have been obvious to modify the combination of Subramanian with
the thermal plate of Lohr, such that Subramanian’s endplates are directly
secured to the thermal plate with mechanical fasteners, is supported by the
preponderance of the evidence cited in the record.
Regarding independent claim 11, Appellant argues that the rejection
articulates no reason to modify Subramanian to place a thermal exchange
plate between the first and second arrays like the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 8. Because we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Subramanian and Lohr, we
likewise affirm the rejection of claim 11 for the same reasons discussed
above in connection with claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 16, and 20
Appellant’s arguments directed to dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 16, and 20
relate to the Examiner’s determination that modifications to Subramanian’s
endplate to accommodate positioning Lohr’s thermal plate between
Subramanian’s battery arrays and securing the endplate to the thermal plate
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Appeal
Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner determines using a threaded aperture to
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

8
attach structures, securing the endplate against the axially facing ends of the
arrays, providing an aperture in an endplate to move coolant, and
repositioning the endplate with a handle member would have been obvious
to a skilled artisan in view of both Subramanian’s and Lohr’s teachings of
mechanical fasteners, Subramanian’s teaching of pins that the Examiner
finds can be used for repositioning, and Fees’ teaching to include holes in an
endplate in order to allow the inlet and outlet ports of the thermal exchange
plate to pass therethrough. Final Act. 4–7.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error because the
record supports the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s arguments do not
take into account the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art
in combining the teachings of Subramanian, Lohr, and Fees. “A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Moreover, “[t]he 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 the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (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 (CCPA 1973)
(“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.”).
In sum, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

9
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 7, 11–14, 16, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Subramanian, Lohr, and Fees.

Rejection of Claims 8–10, 17, 18, 21, and 22
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the first and
second arrays are side-oriented arrays.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
Appellant’s Figure 2 above depicts side-oriented arrays 60, 68 because they
are disposed on their side face with terminal 176 extending through a top
face. Spec. ¶¶ 60, 65. The Examiner finds Subramanian as modified by Lohr
teaches the battery assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose the orientation
of the battery cells in the first and second arrays. Final Act. 7. The Examiner
finds Subramanian ’701 discloses a battery assembly comprising two arrays
of battery cells with a thermal exchange plate disposed between the arrays
wherein the bottom faces of the battery cells contact the thermal exchange
plate. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Subramanian ’701 Figs. 3–5, ¶ 30). The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to use Subramanian ’701’s
cell orientation in the battery assembly of Subramanian modified by Lohr
because Subramanian teaches the orientation allows effective thermal
management of battery cells. Final Act. 8 (citing Subramanian ’701 ¶ 26).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is speculative because
Subramanian ’701 does not relate contact between the bottom surface of
cells as allowing more effective heat transfer than any other surface of the
battery cells. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that
the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 8 as obvious over
Subramanian, Lohr, Fees, and Subramanian ’701 because the record
supports the Examiner’s findings. Subramanian ’701 explicitly teaches a
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

10
configuration where the bottom surface of each of the battery cells is in
contact with the thermal plate and explains “surface area in a thermal fluid
flow field is important for effective heat transfer.” Subramanian ’701 ¶ 26.
Appellant’s Specification defines the bottom face of battery cells as having a
greater surface dimension than the side faces. Spec. ¶ 61. Therefore the
preponderance of the evidence in this Appeal record supports the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and recites “the terminals extend
through respective faces of the battery cells opposite the thermal exchange
plate.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds Subramanian
’701 discloses terminals extending from faces of the battery cells opposite
the thermal exchange plate. Final Act. 8 (citing Subramanian ’701 Figs. 3–5,
¶ 30). Appellant’s statements questioning the relationship between terminal
orientation and thermal management and asserting the Examiner has not set
forth a prima facie case of obviousness because there is no reason to change
terminal orientation are not persuasive of error because the record supports
the Examiner’s finding that Subramanian ’701 discloses battery cell
terminals opposite the side of the battery cell that contacts the thermal plate
as required by claim 10. Appeal Br. 9. To the extent that Appellant argues a
person having ordinary skill in the art would select Lohr’s terminal
orientation over Subramanian ’701’s terminal orientation, Appellant fails to
explain adequately why one skilled in the art would not have been able to
arrive at the claimed invention from the teachings of Subramanian ’701,
which explain that the terminals are located opposite the base of the battery
cells, and the base of the battery cells contacts the thermal exchange plate,
because surface area is an important factor for effective heat transfer. See
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

11
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738,
743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in
the art). Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence in this Appeal
record supports the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Regarding independent claim 21, Appellant relies on arguments
presented with respect to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 8.
Appeal Br. 9–10. Because we are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly
erred in rejecting claims 1 and 8, we likewise affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 21 for the same reasons. Appellant also refers back to
arguments relating to modifications of Subramanian’s endplate required by
dependent claims 6 and 7. Because Appellant fails to explain adequately
why one skilled in the art would not have been able to arrive at the claimed
endplate modifications from the teachings of Subramanian, Lohr, and Fees,
we similarly are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
claim 21.
Regarding claim 22 which recites “the first tensioning member at least
partially disposed between the terminals of the first array, the second
tensioning member at least partially disposed between the terminals of the
second array,” Appellant argues the rejection fails to articulate a reason for
positioning tensioning members between terminals where Subramanian
already longitudinally reinforces without placing tensioning members
between terminals. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of
error because the Examiner relies on Subramanian ’701 disposing first and
second tension members between the terminals of the first and second array
to assist in longitudinally reinforcing the battery assembly. Final Act. 11
Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

12
(citing Subramanian ’701 Figs. 3A, 3B, ¶ 37). The record supports the
Examiner’s findings. Subramanian ’701 characterizes these substructures in
Figures 3A and 3B as optional sub-supports that “assist in longitudinally
reinforcing the exo-support structure.” Subramanian ’701 ¶ 37. Accordingly,
we affirm the rejection of claim 22.
In sum, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8–10, 17, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Subramanian, Lohr, Fees, and Subramanian ’701.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons and those provided in the Final Office Action and
the Examiner’s Answer, we uphold the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
1–4, 6–14, and 16–22.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 7,
11–14, 16,
19, 20
103 Subramanian, Lohr, Fees
1–4, 6, 7,
11–14, 16,
19, 20

8–10, 17,
18, 21, 22 103
Subramanian, Lohr,
Fees, Subramanian
’701
8–10, 17,
18, 21, 22
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–14,
16–22

Appeal 2020-004895
Application 15/819,578

13
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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED