Ex Parte Stalder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2017

14090455 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2017)

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