TECHTRONIC POWER TOOLS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2021

2020005668 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 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.
14/899,833 12/18/2015 Denis Gaston Fauteux 020872-8727-US00 3604
78961 7590 09/10/2021
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (TTi)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
Milwaukee, WI 53202
EXAMINER
SHEIKH, HAROON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2021 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):
IPdeptSC@ttigroupna.com
mkeipdocket@MichaelBest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DENIS GASTON FAUTEUX and WING KEUNG WOO
Appeal 2020-005668
Application 14/899,833
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, 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, 3–10, 12, 13, 16, 18–22, and 24–26.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed December 18, 2015
(“Spec.”); the Final Office Action dated October 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed March 3, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
dated July 2, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed July 29, 2020 (“Reply
Br.”).
2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Techtronic Power Tools Technology
Limited. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005668
Application 14/899,833

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a lithium-polymer based battery pack for
powering a hand held power tool or a garden tool. Spec. 1, ll. 19–20.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis to highlight key
disputed limitations, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A lithium-polymer based battery pack for
powering a hand held power tool or a garden tool, the battery
pack comprising:
a battery pack housing selectively connectable to and
supportable by a hand held power tool or a garden tool;
a plurality of battery cells located within the battery pack
housing, the plurality of battery cells being interconnected to
have a combined output voltage of at least 4 volts and a
combined average discharge current of greater than 10 amps,
wherein the plurality of battery cells are layered within the
battery pack housing such that each cell is lying adjacent
another one of the cells;
a plurality of battery cell cradles, each of the plurality of
battery cell cradles including a cell channel for receiving one of
the plurality of battery cells and a resiliently deformable
substrate, the resiliently deformable substrate separating
adjacent battery cells when the plurality of battery cell cradles
are stacked within a cradle frame; and
a pressure sensor located between at least two adjacent
ones of the cells in the cell channel of one of the plurality of
battery cell cradles, the pressure sensor providing a pressure
sensor signal to a battery controller related to expansion in
thickness of the plurality of battery cells,
wherein each cell has a lithium-polymer based chemistry
and a nominal charged internal impedance of less than or equal
to approximately 10 milliohms,
Appeal 2020-005668
Application 14/899,833

3
wherein the battery pack housing defines a battery pack
housing volume and the plurality of battery cells located within
the battery pack housing defines a combined battery cell
volume, and
wherein a ratio of the combined battery cell volume to
the battery pack housing volume is greater than 80%.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal (Ans. 3;
Final Act. 3–13):
I. Claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 12, 13, 16, 18–20, 25, and 26 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over White,3 Carrier,4 Kritzer,5
Hirai,6 and Roβkamp,7 as evidenced by Urry.8
II. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
White, Carrier, Kritzer, Hirai, Roβkamp, Urry, and Johnson.9
III. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over White, Carrier, Kritzer, Hirai, Roβkamp, Urry, and Han.10

3 White et al., US 2008/0309289 Al, published Dec. 18, 2008.
4 Carrier et al., US 2008/0180059 Al, published July 31, 2008.
5 Kritzer, US 2011/0003185 Al, published Jan. 6, 2011.
6 Hirai, JP 2012-164463 A, published Aug. 30, 2012. We refer to the
machine translation of record of Hirai as cited by the Examiner and
Appellant.
7 Roβkamp et al., US 2010/0218386 Al, published Sept. 2, 2010.
8 Urry, US 2001/0000238 Al, published April 12, 2001.
9 Johnson et al., US 2006/0164032 Al, published July 27, 2006.
10 Han et al., US 2012/0301747 Al, published Nov. 29, 2012.
Appeal 2020-005668
Application 14/899,833

4
IV. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over White, Carrier, Kritzer, Hirai, Roβkamp, Urry, Han, and Barter.11
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the evidence in light of the Appellant’s and the
Examiner’s opposing positions, we determine that Appellant has not
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection I – Obviousness over White, Carrier, Kritzer, Hirai, Roβkamp, and
Urry
Appellant separately argues the patentability of claims 1 and 16.
Appeal Br. 8–14. The remaining rejected claims, claims 3–10, 12, 13, 18–
20, and 24–26, will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Claim 1
Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 1’s requirements that
the battery pack housing defines a battery pack housing volume
and a plurality of battery cells located within the battery pack
housing defines a combined battery cell volume, and

wherein a ratio of the combined battery cell volume to the battery
pack housing volume is greater than 80%.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).

11 Barter et al., US 2012/0009462 Al, published Jan. 12, 2012.
Appeal 2020-005668
Application 14/899,833

5
The Examiner finds that White teaches claim 1’s lithium-polymer
based battery pack that includes a plurality of battery cells located within the
battery pack housing, but acknowledges that White fails to teach the battery
pack housing defines a volume, the plurality of battery cells located within
the battery pack housing defines a combined battery volume, and a ratio of
the combined battery volume to the housing volume is greater than 80%.
Final Act. 3, 6 (citing White ¶¶ 24, 25, 29, 30, Figs. 1, 3).
The Examiner finds that Roβkamp teaches a battery pack (15) housed
in a compartment (16) within the device housing (9) of a power tool (1).
Final Act. 6 (citing Roβkamp ¶ 25). The Examiner further finds that Urry
teaches a battery pack (battery 10) including battery housing (12) and a
plurality of battery cells (30) arranged parallel to each other in a compact
relationship to closely abut the interior sides of the housing to fit compactly
within the battery housing to maximize volume consumption of the housing
so the internal volume of housing is fully utilized by batteries. Final Act. 7
(Urry ¶ 20, Figs. 1, 2). Based on Roβkamp’s and Urry’s teachings, the
Examiner finds that an ordinary skilled artisan would readily appreciate that
the size/volume of the battery pack housing relative to the size/volume of the
battery cells is a result-effective variable to arrange the battery pack in the
housing in a space-saving manner. Final Act. 7. The Examiner then
determines that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art modify White’s battery pack so the battery pack housing defines a battery
pack housing volume, the plurality of battery cells located within the battery
pack housing defines a combined batter cell volume, and a ratio of the
combined battery cell volume to the battery pack housing volume is greater
than 80%. Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2020-005668
Application 14/899,833

6
Appellant argues that Roβkamp teaches a battery pack within a device
housing, but fails to teach a plurality of battery cells defines a combined
battery cell volume within a battery pack housing. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant
argues that even if Roβkamp teaches “the battery pack housing defines a
battery pack housing volume and the plurality of battery cells located within
the battery pack housing defines a combined battery cell volume,” Roβkamp
fails to teach “a ratio of the combined battery cell volume to the battery pack
housing volume is greater than 80%.” Id. Appellant contends that teaching a
sufficient volume within a housing to arrange components is not the same as
teaching claim 1’s ratio. Id. Appellant argues that Urry does not cure the
deficiency of Roβkamp. Id. Appellant argues that Urry is incompatible with
White because Urry fails to teach or suggest lithium-polymer battery cells.
Id. at 10.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Roβkamp and Urry evince that it was well-known in
the art to maximize volume of the battery housing to effectively use the
volume of the housing. Ans. 16 (citing Roβkamp ¶¶ 7–8, Fig. 2; Urry ¶ 20,
Figs. 1–2); see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive
to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in concluding
that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
optimize the volume in White’s battery housing so the ratio of the combined
battery cell volume to the battery pack housing volume is greater than 80%.
Appellant has not directed us to sufficient evidence of criticality, or
Appeal 2020-005668
Application 14/899,833

7
otherwise persuaded us that the claimed ratio would not have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 12, 13, 18–20, 25, 26.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and further requires “a temperature
sensor located between at least two adjacent ones of the cells, the
temperature sensor providing a temperature sensor signal to the battery
controller.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that White’s paragraphs 26 and 28 teach
claim 16’s limitations. Final Act. 9.
Appellant argues that White (Fig. 2) teaches a temperature sensor (50)
is connected to the battery cells (20), but fails to teach the temperature
sensor (50) being “located between at least two adjacent ones of the cells,”
as required by claim 16. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. White teaches that its battery pack includes a
temperature sensor (50) that measures the temperature of the cells. White
¶¶ 26, 28. Although White does not depict where the temperature sensor is
located within the battery pack, as Appellant points out, White’s teaching
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a
temperature sensor between at least two adjacent battery cells within
White’s battery pack. Thus, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 16.
Appeal 2020-005668
Application 14/899,833

8
Rejections II–IV – Obviousness over White, Carrier, Kritzer, Hirai,
Roβkamp, Urry, further in view of Johnson, Han, or Han and Barter
Appellant does not present arguments contesting the Examiner’s
separate rejections of claims 6 and 21–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Consequently, we summarily sustain the separate reasons for rejecting those
claims. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular
issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as
a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”), and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02
(9th ed. rev. 08.2017 Jan. 2018) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the
examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, appellant has waived any
challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain
it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the
examiner’s answer.”).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the claims is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–
10, 12, 13,
16, 18–20,
25, 26
103 White, Carrier,
Kritzer, Hirai,
Roβkamp, Urry
1, 3–5, 7–
10, 12, 13,
16, 18–20,
25, 26

Appeal 2020-005668
Application 14/899,833

9
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6 103 White, Carrier,
Kritzer, Hirai,
Roβkamp, Urry,
Johnson
6
21, 22 103 White, Carrier,
Kritzer, Hirai,
Roβkamp, Urry,
Han
21, 22
24 103 White, Carrier,
Kritzer, Hirai,
Roβkamp, Urry,
Han, Barter
24
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–10, 12,
13, 16, 18–
22, 24–26

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