Ex Parte Sugiyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2017

13128069 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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.
13/128,069 05/06/2011 Shoji Sugiyama 110112 6791
23850 7590 08/28/2017
KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP
1420 K Street, N.W.
4th Floor
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
MCDERMOTT, HELEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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 SHOJI SUGIYAMA and KEITA MORI
Appeal 2016-005772
Application 13/128,069
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 6, 2011; Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”) dated November 4, 2014; Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Br.”) dated August 11, 2015; and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated
March 9, 2016.
2 Appellants identify Nnippon Sheet Glass Company, Limited, as the real
party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005772
Application 13/128,069
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a separator for a valve
regulated lead-acid battery. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is representative and
reproduced from the Claims Appendix of Appellants’ Appeal Brief below:
1. A separator for a valve regulated lead-acid battery,
comprising a paper sheet manufactured by a wet papermaking
process comprising glass fibers, the paper sheet further
comprising:
a first layer;
a second layer; and
a third layer;
wherein the first layer and the third layer are layers of
thin fiber comprising glass fibers having an average fiber
diameter of 0.5 to 0.8 pm,
wherein the second layer is a layer of thick fiber
comprising glass fibers having an average fiber diameter of 1.3
to 1.9 pm,
wherein the first layer, second layer, and third layer are
laminated in the thicknesswise direction of the separator so that
the second layer is disposed between the first layer and the third
layer to constitute a three-layer laminated structure,
wherein the average fiber diameter of the glass fibers in
the all layers is at least 1.1 pm, and
wherein the ratio of the sum of the total thickness of the
first layer and the third layer to the thickness of the second layer
is 25/75 to 50/50.
2
Appeal 2016-005772
Application 13/128,069
REJECTION
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stevenson3 and Ferreira.4
OPINION
Appellants argue the rejected claims as a group. See Br. 7—15. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as
representative. Each of claims 2—15 stands or falls with the representative
claim.
The Examiner finds that Stevenson discloses a three-layer separator
for a valve-regulated lead-acid battery, wherein an inner coarse fiber layer is
positioned between outer fine fiber layers. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds
that Stevenson fails to specify the relative thickness of the coarse and fine
fiber layers, but that Ferreira provides a reason to provide fine fiber material
at a thickness that corresponds to 20—50% of the total thickness of the
separator. Id. at 6. The Examiner further finds that Stevenson fails to teach
coarse and fine fibers having average diameters within the recited ranges,
but that Ferreira provides a reason to select average fiber diameters greater
than and less than 1 pm, respectively. Id. The Examiner also finds that
Stevenson provides evidence that the respective coarse and fine fiber
diameters were recognized as result-effective variables, such that their
optimization would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
at 7—8; Ans. 15.
3 P.R. Stevenson, Advanced separator construction for long life valve-
regulated lead-acid batteries, 116 Journal of Power Sources 160—168 (2003)
(“Stevenson”).
4 WO 98/15020, published April 9, 1998 (“Ferreira”), as translated.
3
Appeal 2016-005772
Application 13/128,069
Appellants argue that although Ferreira teaches providing a fine-fiber
layer with a thickness between 20 and 50% of the total thickness in a two-
layer separator, “there remains no teaching or suggestion regarding the
thickness of the third layer, or the ratio of the sum of both of the thin-fiber
layers.” Br. 10. We disagree. Ferreira additionally states that “[t]he weight
ratio between the fine and coarse fibers may vary between 20 and 50% of
the total weight of the separator.” Ferreira 1. We agree with the Examiner’s
reasoning, Ans. 12, that one of ordinary skill would have applied the above-
mentioned teachings in Ferreira to Stevensons’ three-layer separator such
that the total fine-fiber material thickness (and, relatedly, the total fine-fiber
weight percent) is within the disclosed range of 20—50%. As such,
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that
Ferreira provides a reason to form Stevensons’ separator such that the
thickness of both fine-fiber layers represents 20—50% of the overall
separator thickness.
Appellants also argue that the material used in Ferreira’s examples,
E610, has an average fiber diameter of 2.6 microns, and that Stevenson
teaches coarse fiber average diameters between 4.1 and 20 microns, both of
which are outside the recited range of 1.3 to 1.9 pm. Br. 11—12. However,
Appellants present no evidence to support the asserted average diameter of
E610. Stevenson’s statement that the coarse fiber layer is produced from
fibers “with a range of diameters centered on 4.1 pm . . . mixed with small
quantities of 20 pm diameter,” Stevenson at page 162, section 3.1, fails to
indicate the average coarse-fiber diameter. In any event, Appellants’
argument in this regard fails to address the Examiner’s findings that Ferreira
teaches a range of coarse fiber average diameters—greater than 1 pm—and
4
Appeal 2016-005772
Application 13/128,069
that selection of a given average diameter within that range would have
resulted from routine optimization of a known result-effective variable.
Appellants argue that varying average fiber diameter affects multiple
variables, namely, “pressure lowering prevention and preventing electrolyte
stratification.” Br. 11. The Examiner responds that Stevenson recognizes
the same properties as being affected in a known manner by the coarseness
and fineness of the fibers. Ans. 15. We agree. See, e.g., Stevenson 168,
right-hand column (“Coarser fibres produce better compression properties,
yielding higher and more uniform values in acid filled cells. . . . Finer fibres
improve electrolyte distribution within the cell, both in concentration and
volume terms.”); id. at Abstract (“Coarser diameter fibres are beneficial for
the compressive properties of separators while finer fibres maintain the
uniform distribution of electrolyte.”). Stevenson characterizes these as
“conflicting effects” and teaches that “by selecting fine fibres for the layer
adjacent to the electrodes and coarser fibre in the centre of the separator it is
possible to optimise separator performance.” Id. at 160 (emphasis added).
In light of these teachings, we are persuaded that a preponderance of the
evidence presented in this appeal supports the Examiner’s finding that one of
ordinary skill would have had a reason to optimize both the fine and coarse
fiber average diameters “to achieve a balance between a sufficient degree of
the benefits” from each. Ans. 15.
Appellants point to excerpted information from Table 1 of the
Specification as evidence of unexpected results obtained through selection of
an average coarse fiber diameter between 1.3 and 1.9 pm. Br. 13, 15.
There, Appellants present information obtained regarding comparative
examples which, according to Appellants, demonstrates that coarse fibers
5
Appeal 2016-005772
Application 13/128,069
with an average diameter of 1.2 or 2 pm did not function as well as
examples in which the average coarse fiber diameter fell within the range of
1.3—1.9 pm. Id. at 13. However, Appellants do not point us to any evidence
or technical reasoning tending to show that the purported difference in
performance was unexpected. Moreover, the information excerpted in
Appellants’ Brief appears to be consistent with Stevenson’s general teaching
that finer fibers improve electrolyte distribution and coarser fibers improve
compressive properties. For example, Appellants’ excerpted data reports
that Comparative Examples 1 and 2 comprised lower average diameter
coarse fibers and yielded a reduced pressure performance, whereas
Comparative Examples 6 and 7 comprised higher average diameter coarse
fibers and yielded a reduced resistance to electrolyte stratification. See id.
Appellants do not present persuasive evidence that these reported
performance effects are other than those which Stevenson expressly
recognized as being governed by the coarseness and fineness of the
respective layer materials.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible
error in any aspect of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection as applied to each of the claims on appeal is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
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).
AFFIRMED
6