Ex Parte HE et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 201813869957 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/869,957 04/25/2013 54000 7590 ScienBiziP, PC 550 South Hope Street Suite 2825 Los Angeles, CA 90071 08/29/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR XING-FENG HE 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. US45587 2504 EXAMINER MOHADDES, LADAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1722 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2018 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): eoa-proce@scienbizip.com eoa-cbd@scienbizip.com eoa-procc@scienbizippc.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte XING-FENG HE, YANG WU, JIA-PING WANG, KAI-LI JIANG, and SHOU-SHAN FAN Appeal2017-010971 Application 13/869,957 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-010971 Application 13/869,957 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection2 of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The specification provides that the claims "relate[] to methods for fabricating lithium battery anodes." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for fabricating an [sic.] lithium battery anode, comprising steps of: (a) providing a carbon nanotube film structure; (b) forming an anode active solution by sub-steps of; (b 1) providing a Co(II) solution and an ammonia solution, and mixing the ammonia solution and the Co(II) solution to form a suspension solution, wherein a concentration of the Co(II) solution ranges from about 0.1 mol/L to about 5 mol/L, a concentration of the ammonia solution ranges from about 0.1 mol/L to about 5 mol/L, Co2+ ion of the Co(II) solution react with OH- ion of the ammonia solution to form a number of Co(OH)2 particles dispersed in the suspension solution; and (b2) adding an organic solvent into the suspension solution; ( c) spraying the anode active solution on the carbon nanotube film structure to form a pre-anode, stacking a plurality of the pre-anodes on each other after obtaining the pre-anode, and drying the plurality of the pre-anodes at a temperature range from about 50°C to about 100°C to prevent the organic solvent from reacting with the Co(OH)2 particles; and 1 The real party in interest is identified as Tsinghua University and Hon Hai Precision Inc. Co., Ltd. Appeal Brief of February 13, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2. 2 Final Office Action of August 19, 2016 ("Final Act."). In this opinion, we also refer to the Examiner's Answer of June 5, 2017 ("Ans."). No Reply Brief was submitted. 2 Appeal2017-010971 Application 13/869,957 ( d) heat treating the plurality of the pre-anodes stacked on each other at a temperature of heat treating the pre-anode that range from about 250°C to about 350°C. App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal are: Nakanishi Liu Oladeji US 2010/0075201 Al Mar. 25, 2010 US 2011/0095237 Al Apr. 28, 2011 US 2012/0137508 Al June 7, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Oladeji and in view of Nakanishi. Final Act. 4 OPINION Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Oladeji teaches or suggests a method in which "Co2+ ion of the Co(II) solution react with OH- ion of the ammonia solution to form a number of Co(OH)2 particles dispersed in the suspension solution" recited in claim 1. 3 Specifically, Appellants argue that Oladeji "only discloses ammonia can be used as additional ligand but does not disclose how the ammonia can react with the metal ion of the first solution when it is used as ligand." App. Br. 8. 3 Appellants argue for the nonobviousness of claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-14 solely based on their dependency from claim 1. See App. Br. 7. Claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-14 therefore stand or fall with claim 1. See id.; see also 3 7 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 3 Appeal2017-010971 Application 13/869,957 Appellants' assertion, however, that "the ammonia should react with at least metal ions and the other ligand" (id.) does not cite to the record and is not supported by factual evidence in the record. "Attorneys' argument is no substitute for evidence." Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In any case, as the Examiner points out, Appellants recognize that "[i]f the ammonia of [Oladeji] is added in the metal compound solution of [Liu], the ammonia of [Oladeji] will react with the metal compound, such as cobalt nitrate of [Liu], to form a suspension solution rather than clear solution, such as Co(OH)2 suspension solution." App. Br. 9; Ans. 6 (noting that it is undisputed that when the ammonia of Oladeji is added to the Co(II) solution of Liu, "ammonia will react with Co(II) solution of [Liu] to form number of Co(OH)2 particles."). Neither the factual evidence before us nor Appellants' own argument, therefore, identifies reversible error in the Examiner's findings here. Appellants next argue that a skilled artisan would not combine the teachings of Oladeji and Liu. App. Br. 9. Appellants argue that Oladeji "teaches that the ammonia ligand is used to suppress homogenous nucleation or precipitation to obtain a clear solution" and that combining Oladeji and Liu "results in the precipitation of Co(OH)2." Id. Appellants, however, do not adequately explain, nor provide factual support, as to why adding ammonia in Oladeji to the Co(II) solution in Liu would lead to the precipitation of Co(OH)2. Id. "Attorneys' argument is no substitute for evidence." Johnston, 885 F.2d at 1581. Appellants do not explain why Oladeji's teaching "to suppress homogenous nucleation or precipitation" (Oladeji ,r 60 (cited in App. Br. 8)) should not be combined with Liu (which is silent on this issue) to arrive at "a number of Co(OH)2 particles dispersed 4 Appeal2017-010971 Application 13/869,957 in the suspension solution" as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner that Oladeji's teaching to "to suppress homogenous nucleation or precipitation" (Oladeji ,r 60) would in fact lead a skilled artisan to arrive at "the suspension solution" recited in claim 1. We are therefore not persuaded that reversible error has been identified in this aspect of the obviousness analysis. See Ans. 6 (noting that it is undisputed that "the addition of ammonia to solution of [Liu] further results in a suspension solution in [Liu]" which is consistent with Oladeji's teaching to suppress precipitation). DECISION The Examiner's decision 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation