Janarthanam, Suriyaprakash Ayyangar. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2019

14208416 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2019)

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.
14/208,416 03/13/2014 Suriyaprakash Ayyangar Janarthanam 83390954 9484
28395 7590 12/13/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
THOMAS, BRENT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2019 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 SURIYAPRAKASH AYYANGAR JANARTHANAM,
BHASKARA BODDAKAYALA, SARAVANAN PARAMASIVAM, and
SAI K. PERUMALLA
____________

Appeal 2019-003487
Application 14/208,416
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before, KAREN M. HASTINGS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–7, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over at least the basic combination of Wondraczek

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies as the real
party in interest (Appeal Br. 1).

Appeal 2019-003487
Application 14/208,416

2
(US 2015/0207115 A1; published July 23, 2015) and Hashimoto (US
2014/0011059 A1; published Jan. 9, 2014)2,3.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (Appeal Br. 9,
Claims App’x):

1. A battery assembly comprising:
an array of cells each having upper and lower ends, a face extending
therebetween and terminals extending from the upper end; and
an exo-support structure including retainer segments supporting the
ends and defining a coolant channel extending in a cell stacking direction
along each segment directly below one of the lower ends,
wherein the coolant channel extends adjacent a cavity defined
between the array of cells and an exo-support structure tray.

Appellant only presents arguments directed to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 3–
7; Reply Br. 2, 3). Accordingly all the claims stand or fall with claim 1,
including those claims separately rejected.

2 The Examiner additionally applied Wayne (US 2014/0248515 A1;
published Sep. 4, 2014) to dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, and
Anantharaman (US 2007/0037053 A1; Feb. 15, 2007) to dependent claim 7
(Ans. 5–7). A discussion of these references is not needed for disposition of
this appeal.
3 The rejection of claim 21 made under 35 U.S.C. § 112 was withdrawn by
the Examiner (Ans. 7). The Examiner also included claim 21 in the body of
the § 103 rejection of claim 1 (Final Action 5; Ans. 5); thus, we consider it
harmless error that claim 21 was not included in the statement of the
rejection.
Appeal 2019-003487
Application 14/208,416

3

OPINION
Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellant’s
contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief, as well as the Reply Brief, we
determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections (e.g., generally Ans.). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of
requiring Appellant(s) to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s
rejection). We sustain the rejections for the reasons expressed by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
It has been established that the predictable use of known prior art
elements performing the same functions they have been known to perform is
normally obvious, and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also id. at 418 (“[T]he
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.”). Likewise, it is well settled that a reference stands for all
of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant’s principal argument regarding claim 1 is that there is no
reason to place a coolant channel in each segment of Wondraczek’s support
Appeal 2019-003487
Application 14/208,416

4
structure located “directly below one of the lower ends” as recited in claim 1
because a) Hashimoto only locates a cooling pipe below the battery cell pack
(Appeal Br. 5; Hashimoto Fig. 5), b) there is no teaching in either reference
regarding placing a coolant channel in the required location (id.; Reply Br. 2,
3), and c) the claimed invention locates coolant channels in areas adjacent
the terminals’ lower corner that “sees operating temperatures higher than
other battery cell portions” (Appeal Br. 6).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error as they
fail to appreciate the applied prior art as a whole and the inferences that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have made therefrom. The Examiner aptly
points out that, in contrast to the Appellant’s position relying upon Fig. 5 of
Hashimoto, Hashimoto also discloses in Fig. 16 that coolant channels may
be located directly below the lower portions of cells adjacent their lower
corner regions (Ans. 9). Furthermore, Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner’s finding that it is “well known in the art . . . that batteries
generate heat near terminals” (Ans. 10).
As we “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” we find a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have, within their level of skill, modified Wondraczek to
have as many coolant channels as desired, including in the bottom retainer
segments of its support structure, based on the combined teachings of the
applied prior art for reasons articulated by the Examiner (see generally
Ans.). KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”); Ball Aerosol
& Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the
Appeal 2019-003487
Application 14/208,416

5
PTO must take account of “the inferences and creative steps,” as well as
routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ)). See also, In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“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 the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art”); 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”).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons given above and presented
by the Examiner.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 21 103 Wondraczek,
Hashimoto
1, 21
2, 3, 5, 6 103 Wondraczek,
Hashimoto, Wayne
2, 3, 5, 6
7 103 Wondraczek,
Hashimoto,
Wayne,
Anantharaman
7
Appeal 2019-003487
Application 14/208,416

6
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome

1–3, 5-7, 21

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).

AFFIRMED