MILLER, Daniel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

14931221 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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.
14/931,221 11/03/2015 Daniel MILLER 83593942 6167
28395 7590 01/28/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL MILLER, EVAN MASCIANICA, JOSEF DOLLISON,
JEREMY SAMBORSKY, and JASON SIELAFF
____________

Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–4, 6, 8, 9, 11–18, and 21–23.2
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as
the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed January 28, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”)
at 1.
2 Claims 5 and 7 were withdrawn from consideration. Final Office Action
entered September 4, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 1.
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1, 12, and 21 illustrate the subject matter on
appeal, and are reproduced below with contested subject matter italicized:
1. A traction battery for a vehicle comprising:
cells stacked in a linear array with the cells spaced apart
to directly define pockets between adjacent pairs of the cells;
and
a manifold defining a recessed open channel and
connected to the array with the array covering the channel and
with the channel in fluid communication with the pockets to
form a fluid flow path that circulates liquid coolant directly
across a surface of the cells.

12. A traction battery comprising:
an array including cells linearly stacked and spacers
interleaved with the cells, each spacer defining channeling
extending completely through a thickness of the spacer; and
a manifold defining a recessed open channel extending a
length of the array and configured to circulate liquid coolant to
the channeling to directly contact the cells, wherein the
manifold is connected to the array with the array covering the
channel to define a coolant chamber.

21. A traction battery comprising:
a linear array including prismatic cells, and spacers each
disposed between an adjacent pair of the cells and defining
channeling extending completely through a thickness of the
spacer so that surfaces of the pair cooperate with the channeling
to define a coolant path in direct contact with the surfaces; and
a manifold extending along and connected to an outer
side of the array and in fluid communication with the coolant
paths.

Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 1–4.

Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered March 15, 2019 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Jaura et al. (US 2004/0137313 Al, published July 15, 2004)
(“Jaura”);
II. Claims 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Robert et al. (US 2015/0221995 Al, published August 6,
2015) (“Robert”); and
III. Claims 6, 8, 9, and 11–183 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Jaura in view of Hermann et al. (US 2010/0136396 Al,
published June 3, 2010) (“Hermann”).
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2), and rejection of
claims 6, 8, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the reasons set forth in the
Final Action, the Answer, and below, and we reverse the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2), and
rejection of claims 12–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the reasons set forth in
the Appeal Brief and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the

3 Although the Examiner does not list claim 11 in the heading for this
rejection, the Examiner addresses claim 11 in the body of the rejection.
Final Act. 5. And although the Examiner lists claim 7 in the heading for this
rejection, the Examiner does not address claim 7 in the body of the rejection
because claim 7 was withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1, 5–7.
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

4
arguments and evidence the appellant provides for each issue the appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); 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) (explaining that even if the Examiner had
failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections”)).
Rejection I: claims 1–4 as anticipated by Jaura
Claim 1
Claim 1 requires the recited traction battery for a vehicle to comprise
(1) cells stacked in a linear array and spaced apart to define pockets between
adjacent pairs of cells, and (2) a manifold defining a recessed open channel.
Jaura discloses battery system 10 for an automotive vehicle including
battery case 14 containing a plurality of cells 18 separated by a plurality of
heat transfer passages 22 (pockets). Jaura ¶¶ 8, 20; Fig. 1. Jaura discloses
that driver 28 (pump) pushes coolant through heat transfer passages 22
(pockets) in a reversible direction controlled in part by movable flow valves
32, 36, whose position is determined by controller 24. Jaura ¶¶ 20, 21; Figs.
1 and 2.
The Examiner determines that Appellant’s Specification requires a
“recessed open channel” to be “nothing more than a coolant passage through
a tray.” Ans. 8. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Jaura’s
Figure 2 (reproduced below), which the Examiner finds illustrates a
manifold defining a recessed “open channel” that brings a coolant into and
out of a chamber holding a linear array of battery cells. Final Act. 3; Ans. 8.
The Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 2 of Jaura is a schematic
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

5
representation of Jaura’s battery system 10:

Figure 2 of Jaura illustrates battery system 10.
Appellant argues that “[i]n the Example of Appellant’s Figure 3, the
manifold has a channel with an open top that is later sealed by the bottom of
the array 66 when attached.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that “Jaura
does not teach an array that seals an open channel defined in a manifold.”
Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that “[a]n open channel is a channel that is
not fully bounded,” and “[t]he passageways of [Jaura’s] case 14 are fully
bounded by walls of the case.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that “[w]hile
these passageways open into the lager open area that holds the cells, that
does not make the passageways ‘recessed open channels.’” Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, for reasons that follow.
Claim 1 does not recite a manifold having “a channel with an open top
that is later sealed by the bottom of the array 66 when attached” as Appellant
appears to assert. Rather, claim 1 recites merely an “open channel.” We
find no definition of an “open channel” in Appellant’s Specification, and
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

6
Appellant does not direct us to any such definition. Appeal Br. 2–10. Nor
do we find any description in Appellant’s Specification that limits an “open
channel” to a channel with an open top, which is sealed by the bottom of a
linear cell array. Rather, the Specification describes “an example traction
battery assembly 64” illustrated in Figures 3, 4, and 5 that includes tray 84
(manifold) “that defines an open channel 98 recessed into the top 86” of tray
84. Spec. ¶¶ 29, 31 (emphasis added); Figs. 3–5. The Specification
indicates that “[t]he size of the channel 98 may approximate the size of the
bottom 72 (or other side depending on the embodiment) of the array 66,
albeit slightly smaller,” and “open channel 98 includes a bottom 100 and
sidewalls 102, which define the boundaries of the channel 98.” Spec. ¶ 31
(emphasis added). The Specification further explains that “[t]he array 66
may be connected to the tray 84 such that the array 66 covers over the open
channel 98.” Spec. ¶ 32 (emphasis added).
We find no further description of an “open channel” in Appellant’s
Specification. Although battery assembly 64 shown in Figures 3–5 appears
to illustrate manifold 84 having channel 98 with an open top that is sealed by
the bottom of array 66 as Appellant argues, the Specification makes clear
that the traction battery assembly illustrated in the figures is an exemplary
embodiment of Appellant’s invention. It is well-established that exemplary
limitations from the Specification may not be read into the claims. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be
read into the claims from the specification.”); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com
Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that claims must be
interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from
the specification into the claims unnecessarily).
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

7
Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with Appellant’s Specification and drawings, an “open channel” as recited in
claim 1 is a passageway along which fluid flows having at least one
opening.4 In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (During prosecution of patent applications, “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.”).
As illustrated in Jaura’s Figure 2 (and the Examiner’s annotated version of
Figure 2), Jaura’s battery case 14 includes an inlet formed partially by valve
36 and an outlet formed partially by valve 32, and case 14 defines channels
(passages) through which coolant flows from the inlet to the outlet. The
channels are “open”—and are not fully bounded by the walls of case 14 as
Appellant argues—due to the presence of the inlet and the outlet, and thus,
fall within the scope of the claim.
Appellant argues that Jaura discloses cells stacked in a “3 x 8 array,
not a linear array.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant argues that “[t]he claimed ‘cells
stacked in a linear array’ requires the cells to be placed in a single, straight
row.” Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant’s arguments, again, do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Claim 1 recites a “comprising” transitional phrase
between the preamble and the body of the claim, which opens the claim to
inclusion of unrecited components. Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.

4 Channel: “[A] passage for water or other liquids to flow along.”
Cambridge English Dictionary (accessed January 7, 2020),
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/channel.
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

8
405 F.3d 1367, 1371–1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The word ‘comprising’
transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is
presumptively open-ended.”); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686–87 (CCPA
1981) (“As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is [the claimed]
propylene, any other monomer may be present, because the term ‘comprises’
permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”). Thus,
although claim 1 requires the recited traction battery to include “cells
stacked in a linear array,” the claim does not exclude additional cells beyond
cells stacked in a first linear array. Claim 1, therefore, does not exclude a
plurality of linear cell stack arrays, such as three linear arrays of eight cells
as disclosed in Jaura.
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Jaura.
Claims 2–4
Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claim 2, and
does not separately address the patentability of claims 3 and 4. Appeal Br.
7. We, accordingly, select claim 2 as representative, and decide the appeal
as to claims 2–4 based on claim 2 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the manifold is a tray
having a body that defines the recessed open channel configured to circulate
the liquid coolant, wherein the array is disposed against the body such that a
side of the array covers the channel to define a coolant chamber that is in
fluid communication with each of the pockets, wherein the side of the array
defines a boundary of the chamber.”
The Examiner finds that Jaura’s “manifold (inlet and outlets, openings
described above) is a tray having a body (coolant channels) that defines the
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

9
recessed open channel configured to circulate the liquid coolant, wherein the
array is disposed against the body.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner provides a
second annotated version of Jaura’s Figure 2 (reproduced below) to illustrate
that the coolant passages shown in the figure “are reasonably considered [a]
manifold defining a recessed open channel which is connected to the pockets
where the array covers the channel when the orientation of the figure is
flipped 180°.” Ans. 8.
The Examiner’s second annotated version of Figure 2 of Jaura is a
schematic representation of Jaura’s battery system 10:

Figure 2 of Jaura illustrates battery system 10.
Appellant argues that claim 2 “requires that the tray and the array are
separate subassemblies that are attached to each other.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant argues that [w]hile the passages of the case 14 may meet the
definition of a ‘manifold,’ these portions of the case are not a tray.” Id.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the plain language of claim 2 does
not require the tray and the array to be separate subassemblies that are
attached to each other. Rather, as set forth above, claim 2 recites that (1) the
manifold is a tray having a body that defines the recessed open channel
configured to circulate the liquid coolant, and (2) the array is disposed
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

10
against the body such that a side of the array covers the channel to define a
coolant chamber. As shown in the Examiner’s second annotated version of
Jaura’s Figure 2 (above), case 14 and valves 32, 36 define open channels
through which coolant circulates. We find no definition or limiting
description of a “tray having a body that defines the recessed open channel”
in Appellant’s Specification that would exclude the open channels disclosed
in Jaura defined by case 14 and valves 32, 36, and Appellant does not direct
us to any such definition or description in the Specification. Appeal Br. 7.
Accordingly, the open channel defined by Jaura’s case 14 and valves 32, 36
through which coolant circulates corresponds to a tray having a body that
defines a recessed open channel configured to circulate a liquid coolant, as
recited in claim 2.
Appellant argues that the “array of cells 18” disclosed in Jaura “is a
loose arrangement disposed in an area of the case 14 next to the open ends of
the passageways,” and the “cells are not disposed against the passageways
and do not cover the open ends of the passageways.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant argues that a “coolant chamber is a sealed area, [and] the loose
arrangement of cell[s] are incapable [of] sealing and are therefore incapable
of cooperating with a tray to define a coolant chamber or to define a
boundary of the chamber.” Id.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the plain language of claim 2 does
not require the recited coolant chamber to be a sealed area, and we find no
definition or limiting description of a “coolant chamber” in Appellant’s
Specification that requires a “coolant chamber” to be interpreted in this way.
As shown above in the Examiner’s second annotated version of Jaura’s
Figure 2, cells 18 in the linear array nearest to the inlet and outlet cover, and
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

11
are disposed against, open channels defined by case 14 and valves 32, 36
through which coolant flows from the inlet to heat transfer passages 22
(pockets), and through which coolant flows from heat transfer passages 22
(pockets) to the outlet. Thus, cells 18 in the linear array nearest to the inlet
and outlet cooperate with case 14 and valves 32, 36 to define a “coolant
chamber,” or a coolant passageway, in fluid communication with heat
transfer passages 22 (pockets), such that a side of the linear array closest to
the inlet and outlet defines a boundary of the chamber, as recited in claim 2.
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Jaura.
Rejection II: claims 21–23 as anticipated by Robert
Independent claim 21 requires the recited traction battery to comprise
a linear array including prismatic cells.
The Examiner finds that Robert discloses a traction battery
comprising electrode structures 12, which the Examiner contends constitute
the claimed prismatic cells. Final Act. 4 (citing Robert ¶ 19; Fig. 85).
In contrast to the Examiner findings, Appellant argues that Robert
discloses a pouch-type battery cell, rather than a prismatic cell. Appeal Br.
9. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument by stating that “[t]he
cells shown in the Robert prior art reference clearly have a prismatic shape
(a square or rectangular electrode cell 30).” Ans. 9.
On the record before us, however, the Examiner does not provide a

5 The Examiner’s citation to Figure 8 of Robert appears to be a
typographical error because Figure 8 of Robert does not illustrate electrode
structures 12. Rather, Figure 1 of Robert illustrates electrode structure 12.
Robert ¶ 19.
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

12
sufficient factual basis to establish that Robert discloses a linear array
including prismatic cells, for reasons that follow.
Robert discloses that electrode structure 12 and electrode 30—relied
on by the Examiner in the Final Action and Answer, respectively, as
constituting prismatic cells—are actually electrode components of pouch-
type battery cells, rather than prismatic cells. Robert ¶ 19. Specifically,
Robert discloses pouch-type battery cell 10 that includes electrode structure
12. Robert ¶¶ 1, 3, 4, 18, 19; Fig. 1. Robert discloses that electrode
structure 12 is covered by inner polymer layer 14, which is overlaid with
pouch structural material 16 and outer polymer layer 18. Id. Similarly,
Robert discloses that “cell electrode 30” is a component of a “sealed pouch
cell” comprised of, among other components, pouch 32. Robert ¶ 24; Fig. 3.
Robert thus disclose that electrode structure 12 and electrode 30
constitute electrode components of pouch-type battery cells. Because the
Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Robert of a linear array
including prismatic cells, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 21, and claims 22 and 23, which each depend from claim 21, under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Robert.
Rejection III: claims 6, 8, 9, and 11–18 as obvious over Jaura in view of
Hermann
Claims 6, 8, 9, and 11
We summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, and
11, which depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Jaura in view of Hermann, because Appellant does not contest the rejection
of these claims. Appeal Br. 2–10; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

13
Claims 12–18
Appellant presents arguments for claim 12 only. Appeal Br. 7–8.
We, accordingly, select claim 12 as representative, and decide the appeal as
to claims 12–18 based on claim 12 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Independent claim 12 requires the recited traction battery to include
linearly stacked cells and spacers interleaved with the cells, and requires
each spacer to define channeling that extends completely through a thickness
of the spacer.
Consistent with the plain meaning of a “channel” as a passage for
water or other liquids to flow along,6 Appellant’s Specification describes
exemplary spacers 67 that define channeling 122 that extends between major
faces 69 of spacers 67 so as to create a void completely through a thickness
of spacers 67, through which coolant circulates. Spec. ¶ 33.
The Examiner finds that Jaura “does not disclose spacers.” Final
Act. 5. The Examiner finds, however, that Hermann discloses a traction
battery for a vehicle including cells 301 and spacers 305, 505A, 505B, 705
disposed in pockets between cells 301 that include channeling extending
completely through a thickness of the spacer. Id. at 5–6 (citing Hermann ¶
4; Figs. 5 and 9).
As Appellant correctly points out, however, the Examiner does not
identify any disclosure in Hermann that teaches or would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill that spacers 305, 505A, 505B, 705 define channeling
that extends completely through a thickness of the spacers. Appeal Br. 7.
Rather, Hermann discloses spacers fabricated from a compressible material
that keep battery cells in place, and maintain the “minimum spacing between

6 See footnote 4.
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

14
cells.” Hermann ¶¶ 29, 32. Hermann discloses that the spacers “are not
intended to act as a thermal shield between cells, but are instead intended to
keep the cells in place during thermal runaway,” and, therefore “it is
unnecessary for the spacers to run the full length of the cells.” Hermann ¶
33. Herman discloses that, consequently, “in order to save mass, preferably
each spacer is comprised of a pair of much smaller spacers, i.e., an upper
spacer and a lower spacer,” such that single spacers 305, 306, 307 illustrated
in Figure 4 are replaced by upper spacers 505A, 506A, 507A and lower
spacers 505B, 506B, 507B illustrated in Figure 5. Hermann ¶ 33; Figs. 4
and 5.
Although the Examiner asserts that Hermann discloses “channeling
extending completely through a thickness of the spacer” based on
Hermann’s Figure 5 (Final Act. 6), the portion of Figure 5 identified by the
Examiner as disclosing such “channeling” (reproduced below) is not part of
the spacers shown in the drawing. Rather, Hermann’s Figure 5 illustrates
spacers 505A, 506A, 507A, 505B, 506B, 507B with solid shading. Spacers
505A, 506A, 507A, 505B, 506B, 507B, consequently, do not appear to
include a void or channel that extends completely through a thickness of the
spacers.
The Examiner’s annotated version of Hermann’s Figure 5 shows a
cross-sectional view of a spacer strip design, and Figure 9 shows a top view
of a spacer assembly.
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

15

Hermann’s Figure 5 is a cross-sectional view of a spacer strip design,
and Figure 9 is a top view of a spacer assembly.
Although Figure 5 illustrates an area in white between each of the
solid spacer pairs 505A, 505B, 506A, 506B, 507A, 507B, the Examiner does
not identify any disclosure in Hermann that indicates or would have
suggested that this area is a passage along which water or other liquids flow,
corresponding to a “channel” as we have interpreted this term. Rather, as
Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 7), the white area shown in Figure 5
between each of the darkly shaded spacer pairs appears to be merely an air
gap, and the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Hermann
indicating otherwise.
Consequently, on the record before us, the Examiner does not provide
a sufficient factual basis to establish that a combination of the relied-upon
disclosures in Jaura and Hermann would have suggested traction battery
including linearly stacked cells and spacers interleaved with the cells, with
each spacer to define channeling that extends completely through a thickness
of the spacer, as required by claim 12. We, accordingly, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-003933
Application 14/931,221

16

CONCLUSION

Claims

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 102(a)(1),
102(a)(2)
Jaura 1–4
21–23 102(a)(1),
102(a)(2)
Robert 21–23
6, 8, 9 103 Jaura, Hermann 6, 8, 9
11–18 103 Jaura, Hermann 11 12–18
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 8,
9, 11
12–18, 21–23

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 IN PART