Ex Parte Konishiike et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 14, 2011

11039321 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ISAMU KONISHIIKE, KENSUKE YAMAMOTO,
TOMOO TAKADA, YUKIKO IIJIMA, KENICHI KAWASE,
and YUKIO MIYAKI
________________

Appeal 2010-005893
Application 11/039,321
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 12-14 as
unpatentable over WO ‘879 (Visco et al., WO 03/023879, pub. Mar. 20, 2003) in
view of Gan (Hong Gan & Ester S. Takeuchi, Lithium Electrodes with and without
CO2 Treatment: Electrochemical Behavior and Effect on High Rate Lithium
Appeal 2010-005893
Application 11/039,321
 
 
2
 
Battery Performance, in 62 J. of Power Sources 45-50 (1996)). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim an anode comprising an anode current collector having an
anode active material layer and a lithium carbonate coating on a surface of the
anode active material layer (claim 1).
Further details regarding this claimed subject matter are set forth in
representative claim 1 which reads as follows:
1. An anode comprising:

an anode current collector;

an anode active material layer on the anode current collector; and

a coating including lithium carbonate on at least a part of a surface of the
anode active material layer,

wherein,

an amount of lithium inserted into the anode active material
layer before the initial charge is from 5% to 40% of the anode
capacity,

the lithium carbonate coating is formed from the inserted
lithium,

and

the anode active material layer includes at least one kind
selected from the group consisting of (a) simple substances, alloys and
compounds of silicon, (b) germanium and (c) tin.

Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to any of
the individual claims under rejection (Supp. App. Br. un-numbered pp. 5-6).
Appeal 2010-005893
Application 11/039,321
 
 
3
 
Accordingly, the rejected claims will stand or fall together with representative
independent claim 1.
We will sustain the above rejection for the reasons expressed in the Answer.
The following comments are added for emphasis.
It is the Examiner's basic position that it would have been obvious "to use
the lithium carbonate layer [of Gan for the reasons taught by Gan] in addition to
the glass barrier already present in WO ’879 . . . . thereby in effect providing two
protective layers on the active material of WO ‘879" (Ans. 6).
In response to this position, Appellants state that "the claims do not require
two protective layers on the active material, nor do the claims require a glass
barrier" (Reply Br. para. bridging 4-5) and argue that "[c]learly, the combination of
Gan et al. with WO 03/023879 [,]as suggested by the Examiner, results in an active
material that is not the same as the embodiment required by the claims" (id.).
This argument is unpersuasive. Appellants point to nothing, and we find
nothing, in representative claim 1 which excludes the presence of two protective
layers or a glass barrier. Therefore, the argument lacks convincing merit because it
is directed to exclusionary limitations which have not been claimed.
For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, we sustain the § 103
rejection of all appealed claims as unpatentable over WO ‘879 in view of Gan.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

ssl