Ex Parte Stalder et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 9, 201714090455 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/090,455 11/26/2013 Michael Stalder 423548US41 8010 22850 7590 06/13/2017 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER AKHTAR, KIRAN QURAISHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/13/2017 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): patentdocket @ oblon. com oblonpat @ oblon. com tfarrell@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL STALDER, FREDY ZUELLIG, PASCAL HECK, KUROSH SOHI, YVES LETERRIER, JERICHO LYNN MOLL, JEAN-BAPTISTE LERAN, and JAN-ANDERS MANSON (Applicant: The Swatch Group Research and Development Ltd) Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, and 14-18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 1. An electrochemical cell, comprising: an anode in contact with an anode current collector; a cathode in contact with a cathode current collector; and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the anode is disposed between the separator and the anode current collector and wherein the cathode is disposed between the separator and the cathode current collector, wherein the anode current collector and the cathode current collector form an encapsulating housing for the assembly of anode, cathode and separator, and wherein at least one of the anode current collector and the cathode current collector has a thickness of less than 25 pm and comprises an amorphous metallic material. The Examiner maintains1 the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (a) claims 1,3, 5-7, 14-16, and 18 as unpatentable over Amano et al. (EP 2 444 437 Al, published Apr. 25, 2012) (“Amano”) in view of Kusumoto et al. (JP 2001-250559 A, published Sept. 14, 2001) (“Kusumoto”); (b) claim 2 as unpatentable over Amano in view of Kusumoto and further in view of Fujita et al. (US 2010/0015517 Al, published Jan. 21, 2010) (“Fujita”); and (c) claim 17 as unpatentable over Amano in view of Kusumoto and further in view of Taguchi et al. (US 2013/0017438 Al, published Jan. 17, 2013) (“Taguchi”). 1 The rejection of claims 8-13 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 16). Claims 8-13 and 19-21 are not subject to a prior art rejection. 2 Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 The Examiner set forth the following new grounds in the Examiner’s Answer:2 (a) claims 1,3, 5-7, 14-16, and 18 as unpatentable over Amano in view of Kusumoto with supporting evidence from Wende (US 7,862,957 B2, issued Jan. 4, 2011) (“Wende”); (b) claim 2 as unpatentable over Amano in view of Kusumoto, with supporting evidence from Wende, and further in view of Fujita; and (c) claim 17 as unpatentable over Amano in view of Kusumoto, with supporting evidence from Wende, and further in view of Taguchi. ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims 1-3, 5-7, and 14-18 are unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The §103 rejection based on Amano in view of Kusumoto Claims E 5-7, 14, 15, and 18 Appellants’ principal argument in the Appeal Brief regarding claim 1 is that Amano does not disclose or suggest an electrochemical cell in which an anode current collector and a cathode current collector form an encapsulating housing for an assembly of an anode, cathode, and a separator, 2 Ans. 9-16. 3 Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8-16). Specifically, Appellants contend Amano discloses outer packages 11A, 1 IB, which serve as the housing for Amano’s cell {id. at 12-14; Reply Br. 5). As an initial matter, we note claim 1 does not recite a particular structure for the encapsulating housing, other than it being formed by the anode current collector and the cathode current collector. Moreover, the language “the anode current collector and the cathode current collector form an encapsulating housing” of claim 1 does not limit the “encapsulating housing” to only the anode current collector and the cathode current collector. Therefore, we turn to Appellants’ Specification to determine the meaning and scope of “encapsulating housing.” Page 3, lines 20-21, of the Specification states “[i]n particular, the housing of the electrochemical cell consists of mutually interconnected anode and cathode current collectors” (emphasis added). However, this reasonably only describes one embodiment of Appellants’ invention because page 10, line 27, to page 11, line 3, and page 11, lines 14-16, of the Specification describe the use of a seal 26 extending around outer edges 28, 30 of the anode and cathode current collectors 16, 18 to form a seal between the current collectors, as depicted in Figures 2-4 of Appellants’ drawings. Thus, the seal 26 acts with the current collectors 16, 18 to encapsulate the anode 20, cathode 22, and separator 24 within, as shown in Figure 2. In view of this, Appellants’ Specification does not provide a clear intention to limit the structure of the “encapsulating housing” to only an anode current collector and a cathode current collector. 4 Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 In view of the above, the Examiner’s finding that the collectors 2, 5 of Amano form an encapsulating housing3 is reasonable in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the language of claim 1. Even if one were to consider the housing of Amano as including outer packages 11A, 1 IB in addition to the collectors 2, 5, this is permitted by the “comprising” language of claim 1, which permits the inclusion of additional components. The Examiner further finds Figure 1 of Amano depicts the current collectors 2,5, as going beyond the edges of the anode, cathode, and separator of Amano,4 which is similar to the structure depicted in Figure 2 of Appellants’ disclosure. Figures 2 and 3 of Amano are also similar in structure to the structure of the cell depicted in Appellants’ Figure 2 because Figures 2 and 3 of Amano depict a positive electrode active material layer 3, an electrolyte layer 7, and a negative electrolyte active material layer 6 located between collectors 13 that are sealed by a cured product layer (Amano ^ 92). Appellants argue that using Amano’s cell or battery without the outer packages 11A, 1 IB would render the cell or battery completely inoperable (Reply Br. 6). This argument is unpersuasive because Appellants do not provide any evidence or technical reasoning to support it. Furthermore, claim 1 does not require absence or removal of the outer packages 11A, 1 IB of Amano to provide the claimed housing because claim 1 permits the inclusion of additional components in the housing, as discussed above. Appellants further assert the Examiner picks and chooses from amongst the available prior art to reject claim 1 and ignores Fujita, which teaches away from an anode collector and a cathode current collector 3 Ans. 4. 4 Id. at 17. 5 Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 forming an encapsulating housing for an assembly of an anode, a cathode, and a separator, wherein the thickness of one of the collectors is less than 80 micrometers, as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 6-8). This argument is also unpersuasive. As stated by the Examiner at page 17 of the Examiner’s Answer, Fujita is not applied in the rejection of claim 1 and when Fujita is applied in the rejection of claim 2, Fujita is relied upon for a disclosure of an electrolyte filling the pores of an anode, cathode, and separator. For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1 over the combination of Amano and Kusumoto and Appellants’ arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Claim 16 Appellants argue claim 16 separately (Appeal Br. 16-20). Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and further recites “an anode connector tab and a cathode connector tab, wherein at least one of the anode connector tab and the cathode connector tab is integrally formed with the anode collector or with the cathode current collector, respectively.” Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding that Amano discloses a connector tab integrally formed with a collector because Appellants’ Specification defines “integrally formed” as not needing connector tabs to be guided through an encapsulation of the electrochemical cell and the connector tabs of Amano extend through the outer package of Amano (Appeal Br. 16-20; Reply Br. 8-10). Appellants further argue the connector tabs of Amano are not integrally formed with collectors because Amano 6 Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 discloses these components as separate pieces that are welded together and can have different thicknesses {id. at 20). The Examiner finds that once a collector and tab of Amano are welded they are “integrally formed,” as recited in claim 16 (Ans. 18). Appellants’ arguments do not direct us to a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding or rejection. Moreover, it has been determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “integral” is not limited to a unitary or one-piece construction. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (collecting cases). In any event, Amano discloses that collectors 2, 5 and electrode terminals 8, 9 may be “separately constituted” or the collectors 2, 5 “may be directly extended to the marginal part of the outer package and used as electrode terminals (tab).” (Amano ^ 87). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (it is obvious to use a one-piece construction instead of several parts secured together as a single unit). With regard to the Specification’s description of the tabs as not extending through encapsulation, this is a description of an advantage, not an expression of a clear intent to limit the connector tabs of an electrochemical cell to such a structure. Claim 3 In addition, Appellants argue claim 3 separately (Appeal Br. 20-23).5 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the anode current collector and the cathode current collector are mutually bonded by means of 5 Appellants argue claim 20 with claim 3. Appeal Br. 16-20. However, as discussed above, it appears that claim 20 was not included in a prior art rejection. 7 Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 a seal extending between the outer edges of the anode current collector and the cathode current collector.” Appellants contend Amano does not disclose collectors mutually bonded by a seal, as recited in claim 3, because Figure 2 of Amano does not disclose an encapsulating housing (Appeal Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 10-11). This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Moreover, the Examiner finds Figure 2 of Amano discloses anode and cathode current collectors 13 mutually bonded by a cured product layer 12 (Ans. 5.). As discussed above, Figures 2 and 3 of Amano appear to disclose a structure similar to that depicted in Figure 2 of Appellants’ disclosure. Appellants further assert Figure 3 of Amano does not disclose an anode current collector and a cathode current collector mutually bonded by a seal, as recited in claim 3, because the collectors 13 in Figure 3 are in a series configuration, which results in the collectors 13 being attached to both a negative electrode active material and a positive electrode active material (Appeal Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 10). In view of this, Appellants contend the collectors 13 can neither be a cathode current collector or an anode current collector and are not mutually bonded (Appeal Br. 23; Reply Br. 11). Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because Appellants’ disclosure does not define an anode current collector and a cathode current collector in any manner that would distinguish such collectors from the collectors 13 of Figures 2 and 3 of Amano. Moreover, Appellants’ arguments focus on Figure 3, which depicts a series of cells in a battery, while claim 1 recites only a single cell, similar to the one depicted in Figure 2 of Amano. The cell 10 depicted in Figure 2 of Amano includes one 8 Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 separator 13 immediately adjacent to a positive electrode active material 36 and another separator 13 immediately adjacent to a negative electrode active material 6. Figure 2 of Appellants’ disclosure depicts the anode current collector 16 of a cell 10 as being located immediately adjacent to an anode 20 and the cathode current collector 18 as being immediately adjacent to a cathode 22. See Spec. p. 10,11. 7-15. This further illustrates the similarities between the cell of Amano and the cell depicted in Figure 2 of Appellants’ disclosure. Moreover, claim 3 does not include any recitations to distinguish the claimed cell from the cell of Amano. Appellants do not argue dependent claims 5-7, 14, and 18 separately from claims 1,3, and 16 (Appeal Br. 8-23). Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 14-16, and 18. The §103 rejections based on Amano in view ofKusumoto and further in view of Fujita or Taguchi Appellants acknowledge the § 103 rejection of claim 2 over Amano in view ofKusumoto and Fujita and the § 103 rejection of claim 17 over Amano in view ofKusumoto and Taguchi at page 8 of the Appeal Brief but do not submit any arguments regarding the propriety of the rejections. We therefore summarily affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 2 over Amano in view ofKusumoto and Fujita and the § 103 rejection of claim 17 over Amano in view ofKusumoto and Taguchi. 6 Appellants’ disclose their electrochemically active material as “forming the anode 20 and cathode 22.” Spec. p. 11,11. 22-26. 9 Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 The new grounds of rejection set forth in the Examiner’s Answer Appellants acknowledge the § 103 rejection of claims 1,3, 5-7, 14- 16, and 18 over Amano in view of Kusumoto, with supporting evidence from Wende; § 103 rejection of claim 2 over Amano in view of Kusumoto and Fujita, with supporting evidence from Wende; and the § 103 rejection of claim 17 over Amano in view of Kusumoto and Taguchi, with supporting evidence from Wende, at pages 2-3 of the Reply Brief and state “the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection are identical to the maintained rejection (i.e., word-for-word reproductions thereof)” except for the statement regarding Wende at page 15 of the Examiner’s Answer. In view of this, Appellants address the new grounds of rejection in the Reply Brief together with the grounds discussed above (Reply Br. 3). With respect to Wende, Appellants state the Examiner only relies upon Wende in the rejection of claim 2 and argue Wende contradicts the Examiner’s interpretation of cells in series, as disclosed by Amano, because Wende discloses a series arrangement of cells in which a collector plate is a single plate with each of its sides acting separately as a collector plate {Id. at 11- 12). This argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies upon Wende as disclosing current collectors made of amorphous metallic material or metallic alloys, as stated by Appellants {Id. at 12). As a result, Appellants’ arguments do not identify a reversible error and we sustain the new grounds of rejection under § 103 for the same reasons as discussed above. 10 Appeal 2016-007010 Application 14/090,455 DECISION The Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 14-18 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation