Ex Parte RADHAKRISHNAN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2019

14296824 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/296,824 06/05/2014 108320 7590 04/02/2019 The Aerospace Corporation Attn: C.A. Mulchinski Mail Stop Ml/040 2310 E. El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo, CA 90245 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gouri RADHAKRISHNAN 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. F9959-00014 (D-760) 7246 EXAMINER THOMAS, BRENT C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2019 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): carole. a.mulchinski@aero.org PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GOURI RADHAKRISHNAN and MICHAEL V. QUINZI0 1 Appeal2018-004409 Application 14/296,824 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Aerospace Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2018-004409 Application 14/296,824 Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I34(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A battery comprising: a conductive base substrate comprising a non-metal electrically conductive material; and a coating material applied onto at least a portion of said base substrate, wherein said coating material comprises at least one active material that is directly applied onto at least a portion of said base substrate, and said at least one active material penetrates into said conductive base substrate. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Kelley US 2009/0053601 Al Feb. 26, 2009 Honda et al. US 2009/0070988 Al Mar. 19, 2009 Chen et al. US 2013/0224603 Al Aug. 29, 2013 Li et al. US 2014/0212735 Al July 31, 2014 2 Appeal2018-004409 Application 14/296,824 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (hereafter "Chen"). Final Rej. 2. 2. Claims 4, 10-12, and 14--17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 18- 22 above, and further in view of Honda et al (hereafter "Honda"). Final Rej. 5. 3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 18-22 above, and further in view of Kelley. Final Rej. 7. 4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Honda as applied to claims 4, 10-12, and 14--17 above, and further in view of Kelley. Final Rej. 7. 5. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 18-22 above, and further in view of Li et al. (hereafter "Li"). Final Rej. 8. ANALYSIS Appellants rely on arguments as to the patentability of claim 1 for all of the other claims. 2 Appeal Br. 15-19. With no separate arguments 2 Appellants rely on the same reasoning when addressing independent claims 10 and 18. Appeal Br. 12-15. 3 Appeal2018-004409 Application 14/296,824 proffered, all claims will stand or fall together with independent claim 1, which we select as representative. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). As such, our determinations with regard to Rejection 1 is dispositive for Rejections 2-5. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We incorporate the Examiner's response to argument made on pages 9-11 of the Answer, and are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments in view of the Examiner's stated position therein. Appellants have not refuted the Examiner's position that the present application, like Chen, uses graphene foam as a substrate and thin film coating methods. Ans. 1 O; Spec ,r 25, claim 20; Chen ,r,r 53, 54, 64. We add that the Examiner's point that no degree of penetration is claimed by Appellant in order to distinguish from Chen, is well-taken. Ans. 10-11. Furthermore, Chen discloses the electrode is porous and comprises active materials that are similar to those required by the present invention. Consequently, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error because they are not grounded on limitations that appear in the claims. In re 4 Appeal2018-004409 Application 14/296,824 Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1368-1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCP A 1982). We thus affirm the rejections. DECISION Each rejection is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). ORDER AFFIRMED 5