Ex Parte Christensen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12888637 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/888,637 09/23/2010
28078 7590 04/29/2016
MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John F. Christensen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1576-0736 4822
EXAMINER
GILLIAM, BARBARA LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN F. CHRISTENSEN, PAUL ALBERTUS,
BORIS KOZINSK, TIMM LOHMAN,
JENS GRIMMINGER, and JASIM AHMED
Appeal2014-008479
Application 12/888,637
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 of Application 12/888,637.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008479
Application 12/888,637
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a lithium battery having an
electron conducting matrix and charging redox couple within the positive
electrode. Spec. 1. During a charge cycle, the charging redox couple
transfers electrons from discharged particles to the electron conducting
matrix, in order to recover discharge product and reduce capacity decay in
the electrochemical cell. Id. at 6-7.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. An electrochemical cell, comprising:
a negative electrode including a form of lithium;
a positive electrode spaced apart from the negative electrode
and including an electron conducting matrix;
a separator positioned between the negative electrode and the
positive electrode;
an electrolyte including a salt; and
a charging redox couple located within the positive electrode,
wherein the electrochemical cell is characterized by the transfer
of electrons from a discharge product located in the positive
electrode to the electron conducting matrix by the charging
redox couple during a charge cycle.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( a) and ( e) as anticipated by Y azami. 2
2 Yazami US 2010/0266907 Al published Oct. 21, 2010 (hereinafter
"Yazami").
2
Appeal2014-008479
Application 12/888,637
2. Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y azami.
DISCUSSION
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants argue that Yazami does not anticipate claim 1 because it
does not disclose a "charging redox couple" which transfers electrons "from
a discharge product located in the positive electrode to the electron
conducting matrix" during a charge cycle. App. Br. 4. Appellants further
argue that the dissolution enhancer disclosed by Y azami is not a charging
redox couple because it does not transport electrons to the electron
conducting matrix, but simply increases the amount of oxygen in an
electrochemical cell to assist in discharge of the cell. App. Br. 5---6. The
Examiner responds that Y azami' s dissolution enhancer transports electrons
from Li20 to a catalyst according to the following reaction in Y azami i-f 162:
Ans. 2-3, 9-10. According to the Examiner, the transferred electrons "exit
the positive pole." Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that Yazami's use of a
catalyst for oxygen reduction in the positive electrode corresponds to the
claimed electron conducting matrix (id. (citing Y azami i-f 197)) and also
finds that the "microporous metal oxide or phosphate corresponds to the
claimed electron conducting matrix." Ans. 3 (citing Yazami i-f 197).
We reverse the rejection because the Examiner has not satisfied the
initial burden of showing that the battery system of Y azami meets all of the
limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner has not provided findings
sufficient to identify structure in Y azami that corresponds to the claimed
"electron conducting matrix," or the "charging redox couple" that transfers
3
Appeal2014-008479
Application 12/888,637
electrons to the electron conducting matrix, as recited in claim 1. Although
the Examiner refers to the disclosure of "a microporous medium" in Y azami
i-f 197, we are not persuaded that the microporous medium corresponds to the
claimed electron conducting matrix, particularly because Y azami states that
the microporous medium is for oxygen transport. Ans. 3; Yazami i-f 197.
The Examiner rejected independent claim 9 based on the same
findings discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons.
Because we find reversible error in the Examiner's finding of
anticipation as to independent claims 1 and 9, we need not address
Appellants' separate arguments with respect to claims which depend from
those claims. App. Br. 11-15.
Obviousness Rejection
The obviousness rejection is directed only to dependent claims 6 and
15, which depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, and is based on Yazami
as the only prior art reference. As discussed above, Y azami does not meet
all of the limitations of the independent claims. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yazami.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, 16, and 17 as
anticipated by Yazami under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the rejection of claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yazami.
REVERSED
4