Ex Parte Mori et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2011

11230282 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/230,282 09/19/2005 Tsutomu Mori 791_265 1398
25191 7590 03/31/2011
BURR & BROWN
PO BOX 7068
SYRACUSE, NY 13261-7068
EXAMINER
SIDDIQUEE, MUHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte TSUTOMU MORI, WATARU SHIONOYA,
SHINJI OHTSUBO, and KENSHIN KITOH
________________

Appeal 2009-013481
Application 11/230,282
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013481
Application 11/230,282

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-14. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to a lithium secondary battery
comprising an inner electrode member having wound or laminated electrode
plates of metal foil. Representative independent claims 1 and 10 are
reproduced below:
1. A lithiurn secondary battery comprising:
an inner electrode member having wound or laminated
electrode plates of a metal foil; and
a battery case for housing the inner electrode member,
wherein when an inner pressure of the battery case rises
to a predetermined pressure or more by a gas generated inside
the inner electrode member, predetermined portions of the
metal foil break to form a gas release channel which allows the
release of the gas to the outside of the battery case.
10. A lithium secondary battery comprising:
an inner electrode member having wound or laminated
electrode plates of a metal foil;
a battery case for housing the inner electrode member,
wherein when an inner pressure of the battery case rises
to a predetermined pressure of more by a gas generated inside
the inner electrode member, the inner electrode member is
expanded and deformed in a thickness direction of the electrode
plate, and a space portion is formed between the electrode
plates disposed adjacent to each other creating a gas release
channel which allows the release of the gas to the outside of the
Appeal 2009-013481
Application 11/230,282

3
battery case through the space portion by the function of the
raised inner pressure in the case where the inner pressure rises
to the predetermined or more pressure.
Appellants seek review of the following rejections of claims 1, 2, and
4-14:
I. Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Murashige (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0198863 A1, Oct. 23, 2003).
II. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Iwanaga (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0148175 A1, Aug.
7, 2003).
III. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Murashige or Iwanaga, further in view of Horie (JP 10-162801, June
19, 1998).
IV. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Murashige or
Iwanaga, further in view of Shirane (U.S. Publication No.
2004/0247999 A1, Dec. 9, 2004).
V. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Iwanaga in view of Nakai (U.S. Patent No. 6,509,114 B1, Jan. 21,
2003).
OPINION1
The dispositive issues for the rejections on appeal are the following:

1 We will limit our discussion to independent claims 1 and 10.
Appeal 2009-013481
Application 11/230,282

4
I. Did the Examiner err in determining that Murashige or Iwanaga
describes a lithium secondary battery that comprises a metal foil inner
electrode member that contains predetermined portions of the metal foil that
is capable of breaking to form a gas release channel to allow gas to be
released outside of the battery case as required by the subject matter of
independent claim 1?
II. Did the Examiner err in determining that Iwanaga describes a
lithium secondary battery that comprises a metal foil inner electrode member
that is capable of expanding and deforming in a thickness direction of the
electrode plate to form a gas release channel to allow gas to be released
outside of the battery case as required by the subject matter of independent
claim 10?

After thorough review of the respective positions provided by
Appellants and the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
has identified insufficient evidence to establish that Murashige or Iwanaga
describes a lithium secondary battery that anticipates the subject matter of
claims 1 or 10.
The Examiner found that Murashige describes a lithium secondary
battery that comprises a metal foil inner electrode. The Examiner found that
the foil is capable of breaking in the vicinity of a serrated portion (10b) to
form a gas release channel to allow gas to be released outside of the battery
case as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1. (Ans. 3).
The Examiner found that Iwanaga describes a lithium secondary
battery that comprises a metal foil inner electrode. The Examiner found that
the foil is capable of breaking along the center pin (29) in the vicinity of the
Appeal 2009-013481
Application 11/230,282

5
groove portion (29h) to form a gas release channel to allow gas to be
released outside of the battery case as required by the subject matter of
independent claim 1. (Ans. 4).
Appellants argue, and we agree, that the Examiner has
mischaracterized the teachings of both Murashige and Iwanaga as they apply
to the subject matter of claim 1. (App Br. 6-8). Appellants correctly argue
that Murashige and Iwanaga do not provide a metal foil inner electrode
member that contains predetermined portions of the metal foil that is capable
of breaking to form a gas release channel. Murashige and Iwanaga do not
describe the center pin as containing sharp edges which would allow the
metal foil to break under increased pressure. Consequently, the disclosures
of Murashige and Iwanaga do not anticipate or suggest the subject matter of
independent claim 1
As to claim 10, the Examiner has failed to identify the structure of
Iwanaga that describes the claimed subject matter. (See Ans. generally).
Notwithstanding this, Appellants correctly argue that Iwanaga does not
provide a metal foil inner electrode member that is capable of expanding and
forming in a thickness direction of the electrode plate to form a gas release
channel to allow gas to be released outside of the battery case. Iwanaga
discloses the purpose of the center pin is to prevent the spiral-wound
electrode assembly from being deformed toward the inner space. (App Br.
9; Iwanaga [0010]). Consequently, the disclosure of Iwanaga does not
anticipate or suggest the subject matter of independent claim 10.
The remaining rejections fail for the reasons set forth above. The
additional cited prior art were not cited to address the distinction discussed
above.
Appeal 2009-013481
Application 11/230,282

6
For the foregoing reasons we reverse the Examiner’s stated rejections.

DECISION
The prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-14 are reversed.

REVERSED

bar