Ex Parte JAURA et al - Page 2

               Appeal No.  2006-2161                                                                   
               Application No.  10/248,326                                                             
               from the battery cells.  Representative Claim 1 is                                      
               reproduced below:                                                                       
                     1.   A battery system for an automotive vehicle,                                  
                     comprising:                                                                       
                           a battery case;                                                             
                           a plurality of battery cells housed within said                             
                     case;                                                                             
                           a plurality of heat transfer passages extending                             
                     about said battery cells;                                                         
                           a supply of heat transfer working fluid;                                    
                           at least one working fluid driver for circulating                           
                     said heat transfer working fluid from said supply and                             
                     through said heat transfer coolant passages; and                                  
                           a controller for operating said at least one                                
                     working fluid driver so as to periodically reverse the                            
                     direction of the flow of heat transfer working fluid                              
                     through said heat transfer passages.                                              
                     The examiner relies upon teachings of the following                               
               prior art references in support of the final rejection:                                 
                     Lake et al. (Lake), U.S. Patent 6,138,466,                                        
                           issued Oct. 31, 2000; and                                                   
                     Kothmann et al. (Kothmann), U.S. Patent 4,582,765,                                
                           issued Apr. 15, 1986.                                                       
                     Claims 1-20 stand finally rejected as unpatentable                                
               under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness in view of the                                    
               combined teachings of Lake and Kothmann.  We reverse.                                   
               2.  Discussion                                                                          
                     Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                                  
               because subject matter thereof would have been obvious to a                             
               person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art in view of                            

                                                  2                                                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007