Eskra Technical Products, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2020

2020000957 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2020)

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.
15/062,883 03/07/2016 Michael David Eskra ETP1000.002 6089
26629 7590 12/17/2020
ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (ZPS)
136 S WISCONSIN ST
PORT WASHINGTON, WI 53074
EXAMINER
HORNING, JOEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2020 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):
info@zpspatents.com
jmf@zpspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL DAVID ESKRA and
PAULA MARGARET RALSTON
Appeal 2020-000957
Application 15/062,883
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, 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 1–19, 23, and 24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Eskra Technical
Products. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000957
Application 15/062,883

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A method of applying a dry, solvent-free ceramic-
based separator to an electrode, the method comprising:
providing an electrode to an application area via a feed
mechanism;
applying a separator layer comprised of a binder and an
electrically non-conductive separator material to the electrode
via a dry dispersion application, wherein the binder includes at
least one of a thermoplastic material and a thermoset material;
and
heating the electrode to adhere the separator layer to the
electrode.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jiang US 2008/0026294 A1 Jan. 31, 2008
Zhong US 2010/0033898 A1 Feb. 11, 2010
Kylyvnyk US 2013/0273407 A1 Oct. 17, 2013

THE REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9–16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kylyvnyk.

2 On pages 2–4 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejects claims 13
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st and 2nd paragraphs. However, as pointed out
by Appellant on page 1 of the Reply Brief, these rejections have been
withdrawn as indicated by the Examiner in the Advisory Action (on page 2)
mailed December 12, 2018. Therefore, these rejections are not listed here
Appeal 2020-000957
Application 15/062,883

3
2. Claim 4, 6, 8, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Kylyvnyk.
3. Claim 2, 3, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Kylyvnyk in view of Zhong .
4. Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kylyvnyk in view of Jiang .
OPINION
Appellant presents argument for the patentability of independent
claims 1 and 12 and dependent claims 23 and 24. We thus select claims 1
and 12 as representative of the group that includes dependent claims 2–19.
We consider dependent claims 23 and 24 separately from claims 1 and 12.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Thus, Rejection 1 is dispositive for Rejections
2–3.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error regarding Rejections 1–3 essentially for the reasons
expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and in the Answer;

since they have been withdrawn. It is also noted that claims 20–22 are
cancelled.
Appeal 2020-000957
Application 15/062,883

4
however, we are persuaded of error regarding Rejection 4 for the reasons
expressed by Appellant in the record, with the following emphasis.

Rejections 1–3
At issue in Rejection 1 is whether Kylyvynk discloses providing an
electrode to an application area via “a feed mechanism”. Appellant argues
that Kylyvnyk does not disclose a feed mechanism within the meaning of
this term for the reasons discussed by Appellant on pages 5–7 of the Appeal
Brief and on pages 1–4 of the Reply Brief. We are unpersuaded by the line
of argument for the reasons presented by the Examiner on pages 3–4 of the
Answer. Therein, we agree with the Examiner that Kylyvynk’s teaching in
¶ 41 to supply the substrate from a roll to the application region shown in
Figure 2 of Kylyvynk sufficiently discloses the claimed “feed mechanism”.
The Examiner explains that the roll is a feed mechanism, which unrolls
the substrate (a mechanism converting rotational motion into linear motion)
as a way to supply (advancing) the substrate (electrode) for the process in an
application region. Ans. 3.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 1–3 (as mentioned, supra,
Appellant does not separately argue the dependent claims of Rejections 2
and 3).

Rejection 4
We are persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument set forth on pages
8–16 of the Appeal Brief and on pages 4–10 of the Reply Brief. We agree
with Appellant for the reasons stated therein that there is no suggestion that a
Appeal 2020-000957
Application 15/062,883

5
low-pressure application (i.e., a pressure of between 2 and 20 pound-force
per square inch (psi), as claimed) of a binder and electrically non-conductive
separator material onto an electrode as disclosed in Jiang would be suitable
for the process of Kylyvnyk because the process for forming a
separator directly on an electrode as disclosed in Jiang is incompatibly
different from the process disclosed in Kylyvnyk for the reasons presented
by Appellant in the record. As Appellant aptly explains, the process
disclosed in Jiang is directed to a solvent-based fabrication technique,
whereas Kylyvnyk’s process involves a dry deposition technique requiring
high speed of deposition so that plastic deformation will occur. Appeal Br.
10–11. We thus reverse Rejection 4.
CONCLUSION
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 7, 9–16 102(b) Kylyvnyk 1, 5, 7, 9–16
4, 6, 8, 19 103(a) Kylyvnyk 4, 6, 8, 19
2, 3, 17, 18 103(a) Kylyvnyk, Zhong 2, 3, 17, 18
23, 24 103(a) Kylyvnyk, Jiang 23, 24
Overall
Outcome
1–19 23, 24

Appeal 2020-000957
Application 15/062,883

6
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART