Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2018

14210675 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/210,675 03/14/2014
6147 7590 08/16/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sundeep Kumar
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.
267137A-l 5477
EXAMINER
SIDDIQUEE, MUHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2018 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNDEEP KUMAR 1
and Alireza Pezhman Shirvanian
Appeal2017-010478
Application 14/210,675
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MARK NAGUMO, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
General Electric Company ("GE") timely appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of all pending claims 1
and 4--18. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and hence the appellant under
35 U.S.C. § 134, is the real party in interest, identified as General Electric
Company ("GE"). (Appeal Brief, filed 17 January 2017 ("Br."), 2.).
2 Office Action mailed 14 July 2016 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR").
Appeal2017-010478
Application 14/210,675
A. Introduction 3
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to "sealing systems and current-
carrying features in various energy storage devices." (Spec. 1 [0002].)
Figure 1, right, illustrates the gross features of a
sodium-metal chloride battery 104 of particular
interest. Molten sodium negative electrode
("anode") in first chamber 20, in conductive
housing 12, is separated by tubular beta" -alumina
("beta-double prime") solid electrolyte
("BASE") separator 18, from nickel chloride
positive electrode ("cathode") 22, which
typically includes a secondary electrolyte such as
NaAlCk Anode current collector 24 and
cathode current collector 26 deliver electrons to
an external circuit. (Id. at [0003], 2 [0005].)
+
",~ r r'
··~-1 : r-··········
I +~-+ ___ 22
~.i_.20
22 :
14, --.--+-\. - ;' ... ______ .. -·
{Fig. 1: diagram of a sodium-metal chloride battery}
3 Application 14/210,67 5, Electrochemical cells useful for energy storage
devices, filed 14 March 2014 as a continuation-in-part of application
13/852,462, filed 28 March 2013 (Bridgeless sealed sodium-based thermal
batteries and methods of sealing same, Sundeep Kumar, Mohamed
Rahmane, Neil A. Johnson, Patrick D. Willson, and Raymond R. Cole,
inventors; General Electric Co., applicant; published as 2014/0295255 Al,
2 October 2014), now abandoned. We refer to the '"675 Specification,"
which we cite as "Spec."
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2017-010478
Application 14/210,675
The '675 Specification highlights two aspects of the electrochemical
cell for proper functioning.
First, the cathode current collector must "provide electronic
conductivity to the 'reaction front'" of the cathode electrochemical
reactions, which are said to be "not only concentrated spatially, but to
include both a spatial and temporal distribution during the charge/ discharge
cycles of the cells." (Id. at 2 [0006].) In the embodiment illustrated in
Figure 3, shown below, lower portion 219 of cathode current collector 210 is
formed from a mesh comprising nickel, while upper portion 223 is usually
solid. (Id. at 11 [0042].) Lower mesh portion 219 is formed as a tube-like
structure concentric with the internal aperture 216 of cathode chamber 227.
215 -
·<4--........ ......
219
---210
3/4
~
'215
.,--202
{Figure 3 shows an electrochemical cell in cross section}
(Id. at 9 [0035]-[0036].) The relatively large cross section in the filling
direction of the interior aperture 216 and of the cathode current collector 210
3
Appeal2017-010478
Application 14/210,675
is said to "allow[] for effective filling of cathode granules in the cathode
chamber, e.g., granules of nickel/sodium chloride materials."
(Id. at 10 [0040].) The mesh is said to increase the surface area of the
cathode current collector, allowing it to exhibit less electrical resistance and
carry more current. (Id.) In the charging state, the electrochemical reaction
is said to begin at the interface of the nickel/NaCl electrode and the
electrolyte separator tube (beta" alumina) boundary. (Id.) As the charging
progresses, the electrochemical front is thought to move toward the center of
the cathode. (Id. at 11 [0040].) The proximity of the cylindrical mesh
current collector to the electrolyte separator is thought to decrease the
distance the electrons must travel during cell operation, and to lead, in tum,
to an increase in the power density of the cell. (Id.)
The second aspect concerns the nature of the hermetic seals of current
collector 210 to an upper surface of ceramic collar 212 and to cap
member 217. According to the Specification, in the prior art, such seals
were formed by a two-step metallization/thermal compression bonding
(TCB) process (id. at 3 [0009]) that is said to be difficult and prone to
relatively high failure rates (id. at 4 [0011 ]). The Specification discloses that
"active brazing," in which an active metal ( e.g., titanium (id. at 13 [0058]))
that promotes wetting of a ceramic surface, enhances the capability of
forming a hermetic seal between a metal and a ceramic surface.
(Id. at 14 [0055].)
4
Appeal2017-010478
Application 14/210,675
Sole independent claim 1 is representative and reads:
A sodium metal halide battery [200], comprising:
(a) an anodic chamber for containing sodium; and
a cathodic chamber [227] for containing a material
that comprises nickel chloride,
separated from each other by an electrolyte separator
tube [215] formed of a beta" -alumina (beta double
prime alumina) material,
all contained within a case [202] for the cell;
(b) an electrically insulating ceramic collar [212]
positioned at an opening of the cathodic
chamber [227], and defining an aperture [216] in
communication with the opening; and
(c) a current collector [ 210/223]
brazed [229] to the ceramic collar [212],
extending into the cathodic chamber [227], and
in the form of a porous, metallic mesh [210/219] that
comprises at least about 25% nickel;
wherein the case [202] and the ceramic collar [212] are
hermetically sealed to each other by at least one active
braze [233].
(Claims App., Br. 9; some indentation, paragraphing, emphasis, and
bracketed labels to elements illustrated in Figure 3 added.)
5
Appeal2017-010478
Application 14/210,675
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection 5, 6:
A. Claims 1 and 7-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the combined teachings of Rahmane, 7 Tanaami, 8 and
Adharapurapu. 9
Al. Claims 4---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
the combined teachings of Rahmane, Tanaami,
Adharapurapu, Komaba, 10 and Lang. 11
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Federal Circuit has explained that on appeal, the appellant must
not only show the existence of error, but also that the error was harmful
because it affected the decision below. In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338
5 Examiner's Answer mailed 10 May 2017 ("Ans.").
6 Because this application was filed after the 16 March 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
7 Mohamed Rahmane et al., Metalized ceramic and associated method, U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2011/0244303 Al (2011) (assigned to
General Electric Company.)
8 Kiyoshi Tanaami et al., Oxygen cell, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2014/0072885 Al (2014).
9 Ragjavendra Rao Adharapurapu et al., Braze compositions and related
articles and methods, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0224561 Al
(2013) (Sundeep Kumar, the first-named inventor on the present application,
is named as a co-inventor; assigned to General Electric Company).
10 Shinichi Komaba et al., Sodium ion secondary battery, U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2012/0015256 Al (2012).
11 Joel Lang et al., Electrode assembly and method for its preparation, U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2015/0207150 Al (2015), based on an
application filed 9 October 2013 [PCT date 18 March 2015).
6
Appeal2017-010478
Application 14/210,675
(Fed. Cir. 2010) ("[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally
falls upon the party attacking the agency's determination." ( quoting Shinseki
v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009))).
GE contends (Br. 5---6) that the Examiner12 erred harmfully in holding
that it would have been obvious to incorporate the mesh cathode current
collector, which may be nickel, described by Tanaami for oxygen-cathode
cells, with the high-temperature rechargeable battery described by Rahmane,
which is "not unlike that of the present invention" (id. at 5, 1. 13). Tanaami,
in GE's view, "shows no suggestion of sodium metal halide batteries (nor of
any type of high-temperature battery)." (Id. at 6, 11. 3---6.) "The mere
mention of a mesh-like current collector," GE insists, "would not lead one
skilled in the art to 'connect' Tanaami with the teachings of Rahmane."
(Id. at 11. 6-7.) GE contends further that because Adharapurapu does not
teach or suggest porous metallic mesh for the cathode current collector, and
thus does not cure the defect of Tanaami, that the rejection must be reversed.
(Id. at 6, 11. 11-23.)
The substitution of one part known to be equivalent to another to
perform a common function is a classic instance of obviousness. GE does
not dispute that Tanaami demonstrates that meshes of various metals,
including nickel, were known for use as current collectors in electrochemical
cells. Although the oxygen cathode cells described by Tanaami do differ
from the sodium-metal halide cells described by Rahmane, it does not
12 We have not considered the reference cited improperly in the Response to
Arguments section of the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 5, penultimate
paragraph) for the first time.
7
Appeal2017-010478
Application 14/210,675
suffice merely to point to those differences. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S.
219,230 (1976) ("[T]he mere existence of differences between the prior art
and an invention does not establish the invention's non-obviousness.").
Rather, "the vantage point of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art
provides the perspective for assessing the substantiality of the differences."
Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc., 62 F.3d 1512,
1519 (Fed. Cir. 1995), rev'd on other grounds, 520 U.S. 17 (1997). GE has
not, however, provided any further explanation of why the differences would
have dissuaded the routineer from proceeding. As indicated by the present
Specification and by Rahmane, the level of skill in this art is high, in that
workers must be able to select materials that will not be degraded under
expected conditions of use. And while the Examiner's position is terse,
nickel alloys are well known to be physically robust and resistant to
corrosion. (Spec. 3 [0008] (Ni ring sealed to alpha-alumina collar and
welded to the cathode current collector); Rahmane 1[0005]-[0010] (ceramic
metallization layers comprising nickel for forming joints to metals.)
GE's criticism of Adharapurapu does not address the Examiner's
findings that "Adharapurapu teaches active braze for sealing/joining parts to
form an enhanced seal" (Ans. 4, 11. 11-13 (citations to Adharapurapu
omitted)), and thus do not demonstrate harmful error in the rejection.
While GE alludes to "specific advantages" ascribed to the current
collector design (Br. 6, 11. 8-10), such unembellished statements do not
amount to a persuasive argument for unexpected results.
8
Appeal2017-010478
Application 14/210,675
GE does not raise substantively distinct arguments for the
patentability of any of the remaining claims, including separately rejected
claims 4---6. (Br. 6-7.)
We conclude that GE has not shown harmful error in the appealed
rejection. We therefore affirm.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1 and 4--18 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).
AFFIRMED
9