Ex Parte Jung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

12206091 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WON-II JUNG, JUN-WON SUH, YONG-CHUL PARK, and
GEUN-BAE KIM
____________

Appeal 2011-010795
Application 12/206,091
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below:
.
1. A method of preparing a positive active material,
comprising:
Appeal 2011-010795
Application 12/206,091

2

heating a hydroxide compound that includes nickel and
cobalt; nickel, cobalt, and at least one metal selected from the
group consisting of AI, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, and rare earth
elements; nickel, cobalt, and manganese; or nickel, cobalt,
manganese, and at least one metal selected from the group
consisting of AI, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, and rare earth elements to
obtain an oxide material;

mixing the oxide material with a lithium-containing
compound;

performing a first heat treatment to the resulting mixture;
and

performing a second heat treatment to the first heat-
treated mixture to obtain a lithium/nickel-based compound,

wherein primary particles of the positive active material
have an average particle diameter ranging from 1 μm to 4 μm
are agglomerated to form secondary particles of the
lithium/nickel-based compound, and

wherein the heat treatment of the hydroxide compound is
performed at 700 to 1000°C.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kweon US 2002/0110736 A1 Aug. 15, 2002
Ohzuku US 2003/0054251 A1 Mar. 20, 2003
Shoji (as translated)1 JP 2002-234733 (A) Aug. 23, 2002

1 We use the machine translation listed by the Examiner on page 3 of the
Answer.
Appeal 2011-010795
Application 12/206,091

3
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
allegedly unpatentable over Kweon in view of Ohzuku and Shoji.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in determining the applied art suggests the
claimed subject matter, and in particular, the aspect of claim 1 pertaining to
heating a hydroxide compound that includes nickel and cobalt;
nickel, cobalt, and at least one metal selected from the group
consisting of AI, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, and rare earth elements;
nickel, cobalt, and manganese; or nickel, cobalt, manganese,
and at least one metal selected from the group consisting of AI,
Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, and rare earth elements to obtain an
oxide material . . . wherein the heat treatment of the hydroxide
compound is performed at 700 to 1000°C?
We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE.
ANALYSIS

It is the Examiner’s position that the combination of Kweon in view
of Ohzuku and Shoji suggests the above-mentioned aspect of claim 1. Ans.
4-6 and 10-13.
Appellants first argue that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case because Ohzuku teaches away from a hydroxide heat treatment
temperature that is greater than 500 °C. Br. 7.
Appeal 2011-010795
Application 12/206,091

4
The Examiner responds by stating that he did not rely upon Ohzuku
for the hydroxide compound heat treatment temperature. Ans. 10. The
Examiner states that he relied upon Shoji for teaching preparation of metal
oxide at temperatures greater than 700° C. Ans. 11.
Ohzuku does teach to heat the hydroxide precursor to a temperature of
300 to 500 °C. Ohzujo, para. [0061]. Ohzuko teaches that when the
temperature is higher than 500 °C, crystallinity of the precursor increases too
much. Ohzuko, para. [0060]. While the Examiner states that he relies upon
Shoji for the claimed temperature range, Appellants correctly point out that
the type of oxide treated in Shoji is a different material than the material
heated in the combination of Kweon in view of Ohzuko (nickel manganese
cobalt hydroxide or oxide). Reply Br., para. bridging pp. 5-6. The
Examiner does not successfully address this fact in support of his
obviousness conclusion. Furthermore, Appellants’ claim 1 requires that the
hydroxide compound include nickel and cobalt, and the Examiner does not
point to disclosure of Shoji that teaches an oxide or hydroxide that includes
cobalt. For example, paragraph [0013] of the machine translation of Shoji
discloses a manganese compound or a nickel compound or an aluminum
compound. Hence, the Examiner’s reliance upon Shoji inadequately
addresses the claimed elements of claim 1 in this regard.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The rejection is reversed.

Appeal 2011-010795
Application 12/206,091

5
REVERSED

kmm