Scott Lilley et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2021

2021000049 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2021)

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.
14/365,835 11/12/2014 Scott Joseph Lilley 6658-01000 4039
35690 7590 12/30/2021
KOWERT, HOOD, MUNYON, RANKIN & GOETZEL, P.C.
1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy
Building 2, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
EXAMINER
CHAN, HENG M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2021 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT JOSEPH LILLEY, GLEB IVANOV,
VLADIMIR KOLOSNITSYN, and MAREK JOZEF SZCZERBA
____________

Appeal 2021-000049
Application 14/365,835
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–9, 16, and 44–47. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to connection of a lithium or lithium alloy foil
electrode or electrodes to a contact lead, such as in a battery. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2.
Claims 1 and 44 read as follows:

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Oxis Energy Limited as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000049
Application 14/365,835

2
1. A method of forming a lithium-sulphur battery, the
lithuium-sulphur battery comprising a stack of electrodes,
wherein each electrode of the stack of electrodes comprises a
lithium or lithium alloy sheet formed with a tab protruding from
each sheet in substantially the same location, so that the tabs of
the stack of electrodes are substantially aligned when the
electrodes are aligned with each other and arranged as an
electrode stack, the method comprising:

i) obtaining a contact lead, wherein the contact lead
comprises an electrically conductive lead with an end
portion, and wherein the end portion is composed of a
metal that does not form an alloy with lithium;

ii) positioning the end portion of the contact lead a)
on top of the tabs of the electrode stack, b) underneath
the tabs of the electrode stack, or c) at an intermediate
position between the top and the bottom of the electrode
stack; and

iii) ultrasonically welding at least one of the tabs to
the end portion so as to join at least one electrode to the
contact lead and wherein the ultrasonic welding further
forms a lithium to lithium or lithium alloy to lithium
alloy weld between at least two tabs of the electrode
stack, wherein the area of the weld is less than 10% of
the surface area of the lithium or lithium alloy sheet;

wherein the ultrasonic welding step is carried out at a frequency
between 20 kHz to 60 kHz.

44. A lithium sulphur battery comprising a stack of
electrodes coupled to a contact lead, wherein each electrode
comprises a lithium or lithium alloy sheet formed with a tab
providing a contact zone protruding from each sheet in
substantially the same location, so that the tabs of the stack of
electrodes are substantially aligned, and wherein the contact
lead comprises an electrically conductive lead with an end
portion, wherein:
Appeal 2021-000049
Application 14/365,835

3
i) the end portion of the contact lead is positioned a)
on top of the tabs of the electrode stack, b) underneath
the tabs of the electrode stack, or c) at an intermediate
position between the top and the bottom of the electrode
stack, wherein the end portion is composed of a metal
that does not form an alloy with lithium,

ii) at least one tab of an electrode of the electrode
stack is ultrasonically welded and joined directly to the
contact lead, and at least two tabs of the electrode stack
are ultrasonically welded and joined directly together by
a lithium to lithium or lithium alloy to lithium alloy weld,
wherein the area of the weld is less than 10% of the
surface area of the lithium or lithium alloy sheet; and

wherein the ultrasonic welding step is carried out at a frequency
between 20 kHz to 60 kHz.
Appeal Br. 18–20 (Claims Appendix).
Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1 or 44.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 16, 44, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Richard,2 Khakhalev,3 Yamamura,4 and
Mikhaylik.5
II. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Richard, Khakhalev, Yamamura, Mikhaylik, and
Kawamoto.6

2 US 2004/0028999 A1, published February 12, 2004.
3 US 2010/0190055 A1, published July 29, 2010.
4 US 2009/0017376 A1, published January 15, 2009.
5 WO 01/47088 A2, published June 28, 2001.
6 JP 2011108469 A, published June 2, 2011, as translated.
Appeal 2021-000049
Application 14/365,835

4
III. Claims 45 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Richard, Khakhalev, Yamamura, Mikhaylik, and Kezuka.7
OPINION
Rejection I: obviousness of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 16, 44, and 46
With regard to Rejection I, Appellant separately argues claims 1, 5,
44, and 46. Appeal Br. 4–14. Claims not separately argued stand or fall
with the independent claim from which they depend.
Claim 1
Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal addressing claim 1, the
Examiner finds Richard discloses a lithium battery in which lithium or
lithium alloy sheets, each including a tab, are provided in a stack with the
tabs being substantially aligned and connected to a contact lead through
ultrasonic welding. Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues Richard teaches away from welding. Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant bases that argument on the fact that Richard characterizes welding
in batteries as “time-consuming, labor intensive, and costly,” and teaches a
mechanical connection that may be used in place of welding. Id. at 5
(quoting Richard ¶ 3). Appellant acknowledges Richard states ultrasonic
welding may be necessary in certain circumstances that call for improved
mechanical connection, but contends the claimed ultrasonic welding is used
to improve battery reliability and reduce capacity degradation, not to
improve mechanical connection. Id. at 6.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. There is no substantive
dispute that Richard teaches ultrasonic welding to bind electrode sheet tabs

7 US 2011/0019797 A1, published September 6, 2001.
Appeal 2021-000049
Application 14/365,835

5
in a lithium battery. See Richard ¶ 3 (“[I]ndividual EC cells, which
generally form the basis of batteries, are usually connected to one another by
welding their respective components (i.e., electrodes and the like) onto a
current collecting terminal.”). Rather than teach away from ultrasonic
welding for that purpose, Richard states it is necessary in some
circumstances. Id. ¶ 33 (“[O]ther binding means (e.g., ultrasonic welding,
laser welding, arc welding, pressure welding, soldering, adhesives, etc.) may
be required in certain circumstances to improve the mechanical
connections.”). That the inventors of the claimed invention adopt welding
for a reason other than improving mechanical connection does not
distinguish the recited weld from that of Richard.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the use of welding
would “naturally follow” based on the teachings of Richard. Appeal Br. 7
(quoting Final Act. 14). Appellant’s argument is misplaced. The Examiner
finds Richard teaches ultrasonic welding to bind lithium sheet tabs to a
contact lead, as discussed above. At the passage quoted by Appellant, the
Examiner reasons that the “lithium to lithium or lithium alloy to lithium
alloy weld” between at least two of the stacked electrode tabs, as recited in
claim 1, would have naturally followed from Richard’s ultrasonic welding of
a contact lead to stacked tabs. Final Act. 14. Appellant does not challenge
the Examiner’s reasoning as applied to the formation of welds between tabs
in consequence to Richard’s disclosed welding of the stacked tabs to a
contact lead.
Appellant also argues Khakhalev teaches ultrasonic welding of a
copper contact lead to either copper or aluminum electrode tabs and, for that
reason, would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to use
Appeal 2021-000049
Application 14/365,835

6
ultrasonic welding to connect Richard’s lithium tabs to a contact lead.
Appeal Br. 8–10. As noted, the Examiner finds Richard already teaches
such ultrasonic welding to connect electrode tabs to a contact lead. The
Examiner relies on Khakhalev as evidence that ultrasonic welding
frequencies within the recited range were known in the art (Final Act. 3–
4)—a finding Appellant does not dispute in the Appeal Brief.

Claims 5, 44, and 46
With regard to each of claims 5 and 46, Appellant argues neither
Richard nor Khakhalev teaches forming a weld between a tab composed of
lithium or a lithium alloy and a contact lead composed of nickel, copper, or
stainless steel. Appeal Br. 13, 14. With regard to claim 44, Appellant
similarly argues “no reference has been cited which teaches or suggests
welding lithium tabs to a current collector composed of a metal that does not
form an alloy with lithium.” Id. at 13. However, the Examiner finds
Richard teaches lithium tabs and copper contact leads. Final Act. 4 (finding
Richard’s electrode tabs “are made of lithium”); id. at 7 (finding Richard’s
contact lead “is made of copper”). These findings are supported by a
preponderance of evidence. See Richard ¶¶ 22, 35. Richard’s teaching of
ultrasonic welding for joining the lithium tabs and copper contact lead is
discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not identify
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 44, and 46.
Rejection I as applied to each of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 16, 44, and 46 is sustained.

Appeal 2021-000049
Application 14/365,835

7
Rejection II: obviousness of claims 7 and 8
Appellant does not present argument against the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 7 and 8 apart from the arguments concerning claim 1.
Accordingly, Rejection II as applied to each of claims 7 and 8 also is
sustained.

Rejection III: obviousness of claims 45 and 47
Claim 45 recites the contact lead is composed of nickel. Claim 47
recites the contact lead is composed of stainless steel. In rejecting these
claims, the Examiner finds Richard teaches copper for forming the contact
lead, and Kezuka “demonstrates that copper, nickel, and stainless steel are
conventionally used materials for the negative electrode contact lead of a
battery.” Final Act. 13 (citing Kezuka ¶¶ 59, 60).
Appellant argues Kezuka teaches “forming a weld between electrodes
and collectors formed from the same material,” and for that reason does not
teach forming a welded bond between lithium or lithium alloy tabs and a
contact lead composed of nickel or stainless steel. Appeal Br. 15–16.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As noted, the Examiner finds
Richard teaches lithium tabs. With regard to the contact lead to be welded to
such tabs, Richard states, “[w]hile current collecting terminal 100 is
preferably made of copper, it can, however, be made of any other ductile and
conductive material.” Richard ¶ 35. Kezuka teaches forming a negative
electrode connection piece from “copper, nickel, or stainless steel.” Kezuka
¶ 60. The foregoing teachings support the Examiner’s finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to view nickel or stainless
steel as suitable substitutes for Richard’s copper contact lead. Appellant’s
Appeal 2021-000049
Application 14/365,835

8
argument that Kezuka does not alone teach welding of nickel or stainless
steel terminals to lithium tabs does not show error in the Examiner’s
rejection which is based on the combined teachings of Richard and Kezuka.
Rejection III is sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5–9, 16, and 44–47 is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 9,
16, 44, 46
103(a) Richard, Khakhalev,
Yamamura,
Mikhaylik
1, 5, 6, 9,
16, 44, 46

7, 8 103(a) Richard, Khakhalev,
Yamamura,
Mikhaylik,
Kawamoto
7, 8
45, 47 103(a) Richard, Khakhalev,
Yamamura,
Mikhaylik, Kezuka
45, 47
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–9, 16,
44–47

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)(iv).
AFFIRMED