Rajaram Subramanian et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2019

15818179 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
15/818,179 11/20/2017 Rajaram Subramanian 83910393; 67186-137PUS2 9440
46442 7590 12/17/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
LYLES-IRVING, CARMEN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2019 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):
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 RAJARAM SUBRAMANIAN, TOM M. GUNTHER,
SARAVANAN PARAMASIVAM, STEVE DROSTE, and
ROHIT GUNNA
Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179

2
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–16, and 18–20. See
Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to retaining areas of a battery
pack, and more particularly, using an extrusion to secure portions of a
battery array within a battery pack. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 11, Claims
Appendix):
1. A method of securing portions of a battery pack, comprising:
slidably engaging respective portions of a plurality of
battery cell frames within a channel of an extrusion; and
securing the extrusion to a support to secure the battery
cell frame.
Claims 10 and 18 are also independent and recite a battery pack and a
method of securing portions of a battery pack, respectively. Id. at 12–13.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed November 20, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed June 29,
2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed September 19, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 22, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed
February 14, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC, which is owned by Ford Motor Company. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Niedzwiecki et al.
hereinafter
“Niedzwiecki”
US 2013/0095360 A1 April 18, 2013
Chassoux US 3,623,917 November 30, 1971

REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final
Act. 4.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
indefinite. Final Act. 4–5.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10, 14, 16, and 18–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Niedzwiecki. Final Act.
5–9.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Chassoux. Final Act. 9–10.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Niedzwiecki. Final Act. 13–14.
6. The Examiner rejected claims 7–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Niedzwiecki and Chassoux. Final Act. 14–17.

3 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 10–12 and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Chassoux. Ans. 14–15.
Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179

4
Rejections 1 and 2
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s rejections with respect to
claims 11 and 12, under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Appeal Br. 3–4. Rather,
Appellant argues previously submitted amendments to claim 11 in response
to the Final Action not entered by the Examiner in the Advisory Action
mailed July 31, 2018 would have resolved the issue and, after resolution of
the prior art rejections, Appellant will resubmit amendments to claim 11. Id.
We, therefore, summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

OPINION
Rejection 4
The Examiner’s Rejection
As to claim 1, the Examiner found, inter alia, Chassoux discloses a
method of securing portions of a battery pack including slidably engaging
respective portions of battery cell frames (accumulators 1) within a channel
provided between projections 8 and lower longitudinal element 2. Final Act.
9–10, citing Chassoux, col. 4, ll. 48–52, Fig. 4.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues the channel in Chassoux does not engage more than
one accumulator 1 and thus does not satisfy the requirement in claim 1 that
the channel engages a plurality of battery frames. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br.
3–4.

Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179

5
Issue
The dispositive issue is:
Has Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding
that Chassoux discloses a “plurality of battery cell frames within a channel
of an extrusion” as recited in claim 1?

Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Chassoux does
not disclose a plurality of battery cell frames within a channel of an
extrusion as recited in claim 1. Appellant’s argument is based on the
position that the multiple projections 8 of Chassoux each provide an
independent channel in conjunction with lower longitudinal element 2 that
engages only one of the accumulators 1. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3–4.
Figure 1 of Chassoux is reproduced below:

Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179

6
Figure 1 depicts a mounting rack for a plurality of accumulators 1
including longitudinal elements 2 and projections 8. Chassoux, col. 3, ll.
39–40, col. 4, ll. 16–25.
Chassoux discloses longitudinal elements 2 “may be produced by
means of an extrusion followed by suitable millings and machining so as to
define the width of the spaced projections 8 and create openings serving for
their attachment and other necessary treatment.” Chassoux, col. 4, ll. 48–52.
Thus, as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in Chassoux, the extrusion is
produced and machined to create projections 8. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s position that the channel disclosed in Chassoux is a single
channel that engages more than one of the accumulators is sufficiently
supported. We therefore do not subscribe to Appellant’s position that
simply because there are openings between each of the spaced projections 8,
each projection 8 forms an individual channel. See also Chassoux, Figs. 3,
6.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Chassoux.

Rejection 3
We limit our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient for disposition
of this rejection.
The Examiner’s Rejection
As to claim 1, the Examiner found Niedzwiecki discloses, inter alia, a
method of securing portions of a plurality of battery cell frames 152 within a
channel of an extrusion, where the extrusion is the combination of snap-fit
mechanisms 204, flexible member 208, and hook portion 210, and the
Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179

7
channel is the “area between the left and right 210 that is labeled as distance
A.” Final Act. 6.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues, inter alia, Niedzwiecki does not disclose a channel
of an extrusion as recited in claim 1, because the claim is not simply directed
to a channel, but a channel of an extrusion, and because the Examiner found
the structural member 202 is not included in the extrusion, Niedzwiecki fails
to disclose this limitation. Appeal Br. 6.

Issue
The dispositive issue is:
Has Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding
that Niedzwiecki discloses “a channel of an extrusion” as recited in claim 1?

Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Niedzwiecki fails to
disclose “a channel of an extrusion.”
Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179

8
Figure 6 of Niedzwiecki is reproduced below:

Figure 6 is a side view of securing the battery cell 150 including
mounting member 154 to structural member 202 using snap-fit mechanisms
204 including flexible member 208 and hook portion 210, the flexible
members separated by a distance A, which is less than a width B of battery
cell 150. Niedzwiecki ¶¶ 14, 33–37.
We interpret the term “channel” as recited in claim 1 to mean “a long
gutter, groove, or furrow,”4 which is consistent with the way the term is used
in the Specification and drawings. Spec. ¶¶ 50, 51, Figs. 5–7. As depicted
in Figure 6 of Niedzwiecki, the two flexible members 208 separated by
distance A create a space where the battery cell 150 may be inserted. We
agree with Appellant, however, that to the extent a “channel” as interpreted
above is created, it is created when snap-fit mechanisms are attached to
structural member 202, which is not part of the extrusion recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 6.

4 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/channel, accessed December
13, 2019.
Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179

9
Thus, although Niedzwiecki may disclose a channel, Niedzwiecki
does not disclose “a channel of an extrusion” as recited in claim 1.
Independent claims 10 and 18 also recite a channel of an extrusion. As a
result, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and
18, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 16, 19, and 20 as anticipated
by Niedzwiecki.

Rejections 5 and 6
Regarding claims 7–9 and 15, which depend from either claim 1 or
claim 10, and are the subject of Rejections 5 and 6 (Final Act. 14–17), the
Examiner’s application of Niedzwiecki and Chassoux in these rejections
fails to remedy the deficiency Niedzwiecki identified above with respect to
independent claims 1 and 10. Thus, we reverse Rejections 5 and 6 as well.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11, 12 112 Written
Description
11, 12
11, 12 112 Indefiniteness 11, 12
1–3, 5, 6,
10, 14, 16,
18–20
102 Niedzwiecki 1–3, 5, 6,
10, 14, 16,
18–20
1 102 Chassoux 1
15 103 Niedzwiecki 15
7–9 103 Niedzwiecki,
Chassoux
7–9
Appeal 2019-002631
Application 15/818,179

10
Overall
Outcome
1, 11, 12 2, 3, 5–10,
14–16, 18–
20
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
Notice of References Cited
Application/Control No.
15/818,179
Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent
Appeal No. 2019-002631
Examiner Art Unit
1724 Page 1 of 1
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document NumberCountry Code-Number-Kind Code DateMM-YYYY Name CPC Classification US Classification
A US-
B US-
C US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
I US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document NumberCountry Code-Number-Kind Code DateMM-YYYY Country Name CPC Classification
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
U
V
W
X
*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 20170303
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/channel, accessed December 13, 2019