Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2016

13027911 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/027,911 02/15/2011 83938 7590 04/04/2016 Brooks Kushman P,C, 1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor Southfield, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Junliang Zhang 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. P010353-FCA-CHE 7750 EXAMINER LI, TIJN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1732 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2016 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUNLIANG ZHANG, ZHONGYI LIU, and ZHIQIANG YU 1 Appeal2014-003510 Application 13/027,911 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20 in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND Appellants' invention relates to electrocatalysts used in fuel cells. Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim 1 is representative: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is GM Global Technology Operations, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2014-003510 Application 13/027,911 1. A method for forming an electrocatalyst for use in a fuel cell, the method comprising: a) activating a plurality of carbon-support particles by contacting the carbon support particles with an acid solution; b) electrolessly depositing uncoated nickel particles onto carbon-support particles, the nickel particles being formed from an aqueous nickel ion-containing solution; c) replacing at least a portion of the nickel particles with platinum via a galvanic displacement reaction to form platinum-coated nickel particles wherein the nickel particles are heated to a predetermined temperature sufficient to form a platinum layer; and d) incorporating the platinum-coated nickel particles into a cathode layer of the fuel cell. Appeal Br. Claim App. 1 (emphasis added). Claim 15, the only other independent claim, contains similar limitations to claim 1, including the emphasized portions above. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: I. Claims 1-9, 12-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2008/025750 Al [hereinafter Lopez2] (published Mar. 6, 2008) in view of US 3,011,920 [hereinafter Shipley] (issued Dec. 5, 1961) and WO 2008/009742 Al [hereinafter Bert] (published Jan. 24, 2008). Final Action 2--4. II. Claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lopez in view of Shipley, Bert, and WO 2009/078815 Al (published June 25, 2009). Final Action 4--5. 2 The Examiner's citations to Lopez are to the corresponding U.S. national stage entry Pub. No. US 2010/0086832 Al (published Apr. 8, 2010). Final Action 2, 4. Appellants do not object to this use of the U.S. document. Thus, we also rely upon and cite to the U.S. document. 2 Appeal2014-003510 Application 13/027,911 DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Lopez teaches the production of a catalyst with a nickel core and platinum shell in a process that involves electroless plating of nickel on carbon support particles. Final Action 2. However, the Examiner finds that Lopez does not expressly teach steps (a) and (d) of claims 1 and 15, for which the Examiner relies on Shipley and Bert, respectively. See id. at 2-3. For step (a), the Examiner finds that Shipley teaches cleaning a substrate with acid cleaner, then accelerating the substrate with an acid accelerating solution. Id. at 3 (citing Shipley 5:30-38, 60-66, 6:11-13). The Examiner finds that Shipley teaches deposition on a conductive material (which, according to the Examiner, includes carbon), and that the effect of activating the carbon "is expected from teachings of Ship[le ]y." Answer 6- 7. In light of these findings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious "to adopt such acid cleaning, accelerating as shown by Shipley to treat the substrate for help producing a deposited metal coating with a strong bonding to the substrate with a simpler, less expensive and more reliable method as suggested by Shipley." Id. (citing Shipley 2:6-17). Contrary to the findings of the Examiner, Shipley does not teach or suggest contacting carbon particles with an acid solution. Although Shipley teaches that electroless metal deposition, in general, may be applied to a "conductive, non-conductive, or semi-conductive substrate," Shipley 1: 14-- 18, the reference is generally directed to depositing relatively large, flat structures such as in patterned or uniform coatings on electronic circuit boards, see, e.g., 1: 19-22, 63---68, or in electroforming, decorative metallizing, metallizing smooth plastic tubes, or making wave guide 3 Appeal2014-003510 Application 13/027,911 cavities, id. at 5:58---60. The Examiner has not clearly articulated a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Shipley's teachings about acid cleaning of relatively large, flat surfaces to treating carbon support particles in the context of Lopez's method of forming core-shell catalysts. In addition, the Examiner has not clearly articulated how one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Shipley' s teachings as to the acid-based removal of a colloid or deflocculating agent in the context of Lopez's method, which the Examiner has not established has colloid or deflocculating agents in need of removal. For the above reasons, the Examiner has not made a prima facie case that independent claims 1 and 15 would have been obvious over the combination of Lopez, Shipley, and Bert. The Examiner's additional findings regarding dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 do not address the deficiencies addressed above. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claims 1-20. DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 4