Ex Parte Birke et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 201812597377 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/597,377 06/14/2010 23122 7590 RATNERPRESTIA 2200 Renaissance Blvd Suite 350 King of Prussia, PA 19406 08/07/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Peter Birke 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. 1800P81822WOUS 9656 EXAMINER LAIOS, MARIA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1727 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/07/2018 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): PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER BIRKE, MICHAEL KELLER, KAZUHIRO TAKAHASHI, HIDEO ABE, KIYOKO ABE, and KAZUNORI OZAWA Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 18-36 of Application 12/597 ,377 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (December 16, 2016). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 Temic Automotive Electric Motors GmbH and Enax Inc. are identified as the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the rejections that formed the basis for this appeal. We, however, reject all of the '377 Application's claims by relying upon findings of fact and conclusions of law that differ from those that form the basis of the Examiner's rejections. Accordingly, we designate this opinion as containing new grounds of rejection. BACKGROUND The '377 Application describes an electrochemical cell and an energy storage assembly comprising a plurality of such electrochemical cells. Spec. 1 :20-21. The energy storage assembly is said to provide a high current carrying capacity, good current and thermal distribution, and resistance to mechanical stress. Id. at 2:21-31. Claim 18 is representative of the '377 Application's claims and is reproduced below from the Appendix of Claims to the Appeal Brief: 18. Electrochemical cell with a pair of electrodes arranged as a stack of flat electrode films separated by a separator film, wherein electrode films of each electrode are electrically connected with each other through inner electrode conductors, wherein the inner electrode conductors of the electrodes are arranged on opposite sides of the electrochemical cell in an electrode material-free area of the electrode films, wherein each inner electrode conductor is connected with the respective electrode films through a predetermined number of weld points in each electrode, wherein each inner electrode conductor comprises a predetermined number of openings in which coupling elements are set to connect each inner electrode conductor with an outward electrode conductor, wherein each inner electrode conductor has an elongated shape having a length, each inner electrode conductor further having end sections arranged on opposite sides along a length of 2 Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 the inner electrode conductor and a middle section between the opposing end sections, and at least one of the openings is defined in each end section and in the middle section of each inner electrode conductor, and each of the openings is defined between a respective pair of weld points. Appeal Br. 10. REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 18-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Loustau2 and Ng. 3 Final Act. 2; Answer 2. 2. Claims 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination ofLoustau, Ng, 4 and Grand. 5 Final Act. 6; Answer 5. DISCUSSION Appellants argue for the reversal of these rejections on the basis of limitations present in independent claim 18. See Appeal Br. 4--8; Reply Br. 2 US 5,558,681, issued Sept. 24, 1996. 3 US 2002/0081489 Al, published June 27, 2002. 4 The Examiner's statement of Rejection 2 omits Ng and refers only to "Loustau as applied to claim 30." Final Act. 6. The grounds of Rejection 2, however, refer to "modified Loustau"; the Examiner proposed modifying Loustau with Ng in rejecting dependent claim 30. Id.; see also id. at 2-5. Accordingly, we have revised the Examiner's statement of Rejection 2 to include all of the evidence relied upon by the Examiner. 5 US 2008/0169138 Al, published July 17, 2008. 3 Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 1-3. We, therefore, limit our analysis to claim 18. Dependent claims 19-36 will stand or fall with claim 18. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 18. The Examiner rejected claim 18 as unpatentable over the combination of Loustau and Ng. Final Act. 2; Answer 2. The patent examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that an application's claims would have been obvious based upon what was known in the prior art. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 701 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, the Examiner found that Loustau teaches an electrode for an electrochemical cell comprising "metal strip/[]inner electrode conductor[ s ]" 4, 5 each "spot welded along the length of the electrode" to uncoated portions of core 2. Answer 2 (citing Loustau Title; Figs. 1, 2b; 3: 14--17, 3 :40-45). The Examiner further found that Loustau teaches or suggests each element of the claimed electrochemical cell, except "the specifics of the cell having a pair of electrodes with the inner electrode conductors at opposite sides of the cell, [nor] the openings in the inner electrode conductor." Answer 2. The Examiner, however, relied upon Ng's disclosure for teaching the elements missing from Loustau. Id. at 2-3; see Ng Figs. 4, 5, 6, 6a. The Examiner found, inter alia, that Ng teaches that "communication along the entire edge of the formed electrodes on the conductive substrate with a conductive edge portion of the substrate, provide[s] for maximum current flow in and out of the battery as well as reducing thermal concerns in high current applications." Answer 3 (citing Ng Abstract). Thus, the Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a battery [with] the electrodes 4 Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 at opposite side[s] of the cell and include coupling elements and an outward electrode conductor because Ng teaches this type of electrical connection along the entire edge provide for maximum current flow in an out of the battery as well as reducing thermal concerns in high current applications. Answer 3--4 ( emphasis added). Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 18 should be reversed for five reasons: (1) Loustau's strips 4, 5 cannot disclose or suggest inner electrode conductors because they are on the outer surfaces of the cell (Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 1-2), (2) from this outer location, Loustau's strips cannot provide an electrical connection between electrode films (Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2), (3) "the Examiner makes no mention of actually modifying Loustau to include the claimed openings," which are allegedly taught by Ng (Appeal Br. 6), (4) there is no need to modify Loustau to include Ng's openings because Loustau already achieves electrical communication along the entire length of strips 4, 5 (id. at 6-7; Reply Br. 3), and (5) such openings are superfluous in light of the through-holes already present in Loustau's strips (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3). We need only address the second and fourth of these arguments. First, Appellants' argument (2) is not persuasive because it attacks Loustau individually rather than addressing the teachings suggested by the combination of Loustau and Ng. The Examiner explained these teachings by referring to Ng's Figures 4 and 6, as annotated by the Examiner (Answer 8), below: 5 Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 ~1,, ;,/'> ./_., ... -" ... . ...:, \ ..;.\ '· ·1 ,.i:•" ,11'k ~ .,· '-,. ,,..,..-<:J\ . /·:;'" )\};: \ ,,:-;\\j . --' ,~~ ,:~ 1~~i I \t --------~ ' 1 I Uncoated portions of l [ electmdes located at outer I ! edge ! L ______________________________________________________________________ ,J I Inner conductor.· ; ,#:.. " tf ... ~ {• ,, \.~-iii Jo.". ' f·)(,~ Figures 4 and 6 of Ng illustrate a plurality of electrodes, having uncoated edges on opposite sides, which are stacked by attachment to rails mated to positive and negative conducting electrode edges. As the Examiner found, Loustau discloses that metal strips can be attached to the uncoated portion of the cell while Ng discloses that the uncoated portions are found at opposite ends of the cells in an assembly (see [Ng Fig. 6]). Thus the combination of references discloses that [Loustau' s] metal strips/inner conductors are located at opposite ends of the cell. Answer 7-8. The Examiner correctly reasoned that "an electrical connection must occur[] at portions 42 and 40 ([due to Ng's] uncoated/[Loustau's] metal strip portions being pressed together) in order for an electrical connection to exist between the conductor and the edge portions." Answer 9 (Ng ,r 62). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the teachings of the combination of Loustau and Ng would have reasonably suggested that 6 Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 electrode films of each electrode are electrically connected with each other through metal strips/inner conductors located at opposite ends of the cell. Second, Appellants' argument (4) is persuasive. Referring to the Examiner's proffered reason to combine the references (Answer 3--4), Appellants argue that "Loustau does not require any modification to achieve 'communication along the entire edge of the formed electrodes' ... because [Loustau' s] strips 4 and 5 ... already achieve" such communication "through compression and spot welding, and/or through a nickel retaining core." Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner responds by asserting that Ng teaches that "having a connection[] along the entire length of the edge is beneficial and this connection is taught as the coupling elements to the electrical conductor." Answer 10 (citing Ng, ,r 62). The Examiner's reasoning, however, does not adequately explain how Loustau' s communication along the top edge's entire length lacks the alleged advantage ofNg's communication along the side edges' entire length. In other words, the Examiner's reasoning fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to include Loustau's electrode strips 4, 5 at opposite sides ofNg's cell. See e.g., KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) ("[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does."); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."). 7 Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 18-3 6. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION As discussed above, we cannot sustain the rejections of claims 18-36 of the '377 application as obvious over the combination of Loustau and Ng as set forth by the Examiner. For the reasons set forth below, however, we reassert the rejections of claims 18-36 as obvious over the combination of Ng and Loustau, wherein the former is modified in view of the latter. 6 Claim 18. We conclude that, at the time of the invention, the subject matter of claim 18 as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination of Ng and Loustau. We, therefore, reject claim 18 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ng describes: (i) a battery having a plurality of flat electrodes and electrodes of opposite polarities 22, 28 at opposite sides of the cell having an elongated shape with a length, e.g., Fig. 4; ,r,r 57-58, (ii) a pair of electrodes 14, 24 arranged as a stack of flat electrode films separated by a separator film 30, wherein electrode films of each electrode are electrically connected with each other through inner electrode conductors 22, 28, e.g., ,r,r 41, 58, (iii) wherein the inner electrode conductors of the electrodes are arranged on opposite sides of the electrochemical cell in an electrode material-free area of the electrode films, e.g., Figs. 4---6, ,r 57, (iv) each inner electrode conductor 22, 28 having a predetermined number of openings in which coupling elements 38 are set to connect each inner electrode conductor 22, 6 The new ground of rejection renders Appellants' arguments (1), (3), and (5) moot. 8 Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 28 with an outward electrode conductor 36, e.g., Figs. 4---6, and (v) each inner electrode conductor 22, 28 having end sections and a middle section and openings in each of the sections, e.g., Fig. 6a includes one hole in each of the top, middle, and bottom sections; Fig. 6 includes two holes in each of the top, middle, and bottom sections. Ng, however, does not describe the portions of claim 18 that recite limitations requiring a connection between each inner electrode conductor and the respective electrode films through a predetermined number of weld points in each electrode. As discussed above, there is no dispute that Loustau's strips 4, 5 achieve electrical communication through compression, spot welding, and a nickel retaining core. Appeal Br. 7; Answer 2 ( citing Loustau Title; Figs. 1, 2b; 3:14--17, 3:40-45); see also Answer 9. Loustau also discloses that spot welds provide mechanically strong attachments at the bond between the electrode core and the electrically connected rigid metal conductor. See Loustau 1: 18-29. In view of these descriptions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Ng's inner electrode conductors 22, 28 with Loustau's metal strips 4, 5 comprising spot welds 6 because Loustau teaches that it was known that mechanically strong attachments may be provided by spot welds at the bond between the electrode core and electrically connected rigid metal conductor. 7 Thus, modifying Ng' s battery cell to incorporate Loustau's metal strips comprising weld points would 7 We note that Ng also teaches welding to facilitate electrical communication within a battery cell. Specifically, Ng teaches welding electrode tabs 21 to enable transmission of electrical current from active surface areas of opposite polarities 20, 26 and the electrolyte-porous separator 30. See Ng if 54. 9 Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 have provided the requisite connection between the inner electrode conductors and the respective electrode films. Although Loustau does not expressly describe including openings between a respective pair of weld points, Loustau's welds and Ng's openings are both shown to be equidistant from each other, respectively. Compare Loustau Figs. 1, 2b with Ng Fig. 6. Therefore, locating each of Ng's openings between a respective pair of Loustau's weld points would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the design of electrochemical cells. In sum, we conclude that the differences between the claimed invention and the descriptions and suggestions provided by the combination of Ng and Loustau would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We, therefore, reject claim 18 under § 103(a). With respect to dependent claims 19-36, we adopt the Examiner's findings of fact regarding the additional limitations added in each of these dependent claims. See Answer 3---6. Appellants have not challenged these findings in this appeal. CONCLUSION As explained above, although we reverse the rejections of claims 18- 36 as set forth in the Final Action, we reject claims 18-36 over the combination of Ng and Loustau, either with or without Grand. To protect Appellants' procedural rights, we designate our opinion as setting forth a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b), which provides that "[a] new ground of rejection 10 Appeal2017-010285 Application 12/597,377 pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, Appellants may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart. (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought .... No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). REVERSED; NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation