Robert J. Mack et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14634516 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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.
14/634,516 02/27/2015 Robert J. Mack 57501-1201 1052
15602 7590 01/02/2020
Boardman & Clark LLP
CPS Technology Holdings LLC
1 South Pinckney St.
P.O. Box 927
Madison, WI 53701-0927
EXAMINER
DIGNAN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
docket_patents@boardmanclark.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT J. MACK, DALE B. TRESTER,
RICHARD M. DEKEUSTER, JENNIFER L. CZARNECKI,
and JASON D. FUHR

Appeal 2019-001983
Application 14/634,516
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11–16, 18, 20, 21, 25, and 26. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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 Johnson
Controls Technology Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001983
Application 14/634,516

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to structural features of
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery modules. (Spec. ¶ 1.)
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A battery module, comprising:
a stack of electrochemical cells having terminals
extending from terminal ends of the electrochemical cells of the
stack, wherein the stack comprises a first end and a second end
opposite the first end; and
a bus bar carrier disposed over the stack of
electrochemical cells such that bus bars disposed on the bus bar
carrier interface with the terminals of the stack of
electrochemical cells, wherein the bus bar carrier comprises
opposing first and second guide extensions extending along a
perimeter of the bus bar carrier, wherein the stack of
electrochemical cells is disposed between the opposing first and
second guide extensions, wherein the first guide extension
comprises a first inner surface that physically contacts a first
lateral face of a first outermost electrochemical cell, wherein
the first lateral face is disposed at the first end of the stack,
wherein the second guide extension comprises a second inner
surface that physically contacts a second lateral face of a second
outermost electrochemical cell, wherein the second lateral face
is disposed at the second end of the stack, and wherein the first
and second guide extensions guide the terminals of the stack of
electrochemical cells toward appropriate ones of the bus bars
disposed on the bus bar carrier;
wherein the first and second lateral faces of the first and
second outermost electrochemical cells, respectively, extend
transverse to the terminal ends of the electrochemical cells of
the stack,
wherein the first and second guide extensions comprise
first and second outer surfaces, respectively, opposite to the
first and second inner surfaces, and wherein the first and second
inner surfaces are tapered outwardly toward the first and second
Appeal 2019-001983
Application 14/634,516

3
outer surfaces, respectively, from proximal ends to distal ends
of the first and second guide extensions; and
wherein, of the plurality of electrochemical cells, only
the first outermost cell is contacted by the first guide extension,
and only the second outermost cell is contacted by the second
guide extension.

Appeal Br. 21, Claims Appendix.

The following rejections are presented for our review2:
I. Claims 1, 3–7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, and 26 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0212723 A1,
pub. July 31, 2014) in view of Honeycutt (US 6,320,121 B1, iss. Nov. 20,
2001).
II. Claims 2, 8, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Honeycutt, and further in view of Shin (US
2010/0136420 A1, pub. June 3, 2010).
III. Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Honeycutt, and further in view of Callicoat (US
9,350,127 B2, May 24, 2016).
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections.

2 The complete statement of the rejection on appeal appears in the Final
Office Action. (Final Act. 2–10).
Appeal 2019-001983
Application 14/634,516

4
The Examiner finds Lee teaches a battery module comprising a bus
bar carrier which comprises opposing first and second guide extensions
(lips) extending along a perimeter of the bus bar carrier. (Final Act. 3.) The
Examiner specifically states:
Regarding Claims 1, 15, and 26, Lee teaches:
• a battery module 300 comprising a stack of cells 10
having a plurality of terminals 11 extending from terminal ends
of the cells of the stack, wherein the stack comprises a first end
and a second end opposite the first end (Figs. 1–2 and paras
0059-0060)
• a bus bar carrier 230 disposed over the stack of
electrochemical cells such that bus bars 233 disposed on the bus
bar carrier interface with the terminals of the stack of cells,
wherein the bus bar carrier comprises opposing first and second
guide extensions (see extensions at either end that are visible,
but not explicitly numbered, in Fig. 2) extending along a
perimeter of the bus bar carrier, wherein the stack of cells is
disposed between the opposing guide extensions, wherein the
first guide extension comprises a first inner surface that is
interpreted to physically contact a first lateral face of a first
outermost cell, wherein the first later face is disposed at the first
end of the stack (see Figs. 1 and 2, wherein the “guide
extension” lips on 230 are interpreted to be fitted over cells 10
of the stack 200 and covered by housing part 210 and 220 to be
secured to the terminal ends) and wherein the second guide
extension similarly has an inner face that physically contacts a
second lateral face of a second outermost cell, wherein the
second lateral face is disposed at the other end of the stack, and
wherein the first and second guide extensions guide the
terminals of the stack of electrochemical cells toward
appropriate ones of the bus bars disposed on the bus bar carrier
and are interpreted to “compress” the cells of the stack together
within the meaning of the instant specification (Figs. 1 and 2).
(Final Act. 3.)
The Examiner also finds Lee does not teach the shape of the guide
Appeal 2019-001983
Application 14/634,516

5
extensions on the bus bar carrier 230. (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner finds
Honeycutt describes a complementary cover 100 for a housing having guide
extensions 110 wherein the inner surfaces are tapered outwardly from
proximal ends to distal ends of the guide extensions. (Final Act. 5.)
The dispositive issue on appeal is:
Did the Examiner err in determining that lips of Lee’s bus bar
assembly 230 physically contact lateral faces of Lee’s cell units 100, as
recited independent claims 1, 15, and 26?
We answer this question in the affirmative.
Appellant argues that there is no evidence that the “lips” of Lee’s bus
bar assembly 230 physically contact lateral faces of Lee’s cell units 100, as
recited in each of the independent claims. Appellant argues Lee is silent
regarding any portion of the bus bar assembly 230 physically contacting
lateral faces of the cell units 100 and the lips do not appear to extend far
enough from the bus bar assembly 230 to contact a lateral face of the cell
units 100 upon assembly. (Appeal Br. 13.)

Appeal 2019-001983
Application 14/634,516

6
Lee FIG. 2 is reproduced below:

Lee FIG. 2 depicts an exploded perspective showing the battery
module assembly 300 including the bus bar assembly 230, battery modules
200, cell units 100, the top of the upper case 210, and the bottom of the
lower case 220.
Appeal 2019-001983
Application 14/634,516

7
Lee FIG. 10 is reproduced below:

Lee FIG. 10 depicts the bus bar assembly 230 including a cover plate
231. FIG. 10 illustrates representative dimensions of the side walls of the
cover plate 231.
The Examiner has not directed us to evidence that the bus bar
assembly 230 includes guide extensions (lips) that physically contact the
lateral faces of the cell units 100. (See Figs. 1, 2.) The lips of bus bar
assembly 230 appear to only contact an upper case 210 and/or a lower case
220. Lee is silent regarding any portion of the bus bar assembly 230
physically contacting lateral faces of the cell units 100. We note that the
Appeal 2019-001983
Application 14/634,516

8
Examiner in the Answer provides a marked up version of Lee’s Figure 2
identifying the guide extensions. (Ans. 12.) However the portions identified
as representative of the guide extensions are portions of the upper case 210.
The upper case and lower case are separate components from the bus bar
assembly. The Examiner has not provided an explanation as to why it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee’s bus
bar assembly to incorporate guide extensions that would contact the lateral
faces of the cell units.
We also agree with Appellant that Lee and Honeycutt, alone or in
combination, fail to teach guide extensions of a bus bar assembly having
inner surfaces that are tapered outwardly toward outer surfaces from
proximal ends to distal ends of the guide extensions as required by
independent claims 1 and 15. (Appeal Br. 17–18.) Honeycutt discloses
fingers 110 that extend downwardly from the top plate 106 of cover 100 and
are directed inwardly toward the fence 102. (Honeycutt 4, ll. 54–56; Fig. 4.)
Honeycutt’s Figure 4 fails to disclose that the fingers 110 are tapered
outwardly from proximal ends to distal ends as required by independent
claims 1 and 15.
Accordingly, for the reasons presented by Appellant and those given
above we do not sustain the appealed rejections. All of the appealed
rejections rely on Lee and Honeycutt to reject claims 1–9, 11–16, 18, 20, 21,
25, and 26 some in combination with additional prior art references. We did
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 26
over Lee and Honeycutt for the reasons presented by Appellant and given
above. The Examiner cited the additional references to address limitations
not included in the dispositive issue. We need not reach whether the
Appeal 2019-001983
Application 14/634,516

9
Examiner’s reliance on these other references in addition to Lee was
supported by the evidence of record.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 11,
12, 15, 16,
18, 20, 21,
25, 26
103(a) Lee, Honeycutt 1, 3–7, 11,
12, 15, 16,
18, 20, 21,
25, 26
2, 8, 14 103(a) Lee, Honeycutt,
Shin
2, 8, 14
9, 13 103(a) Lee, Honeycutt,
Callicoat
9, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–
16, 18, 20,
21, 25, 26

REVERSED