Ex Parte Nishida et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 201613477136 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/477,136 38485 7590 ARENT FOX LLP FILING DATE 05/22/2012 09/26/2016 1675 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kunio Nishida 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. 036433.03149 3181 EXAMINER ESSEX, STEPHAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1727 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2016 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): patentdocket@arentfox.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KUNIO NISHIDA, MASUTAKA OUCHI, MAKOTO YOSHIOKA, and TAKESHI HAYASHI Appeal2015-003250 Application 13/477,136 1 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 16, and 17. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party is MURAT A MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. App. Br. 2. Appeal2015-003250 Application 13/477,136 The Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3-5 and 9-14 over Okada (US 2009/0214957 Al, Aug. 27, 2009) in view of Kinoshita (US 2010/0099029 Al, Apr. 22, 2010) and Lee (US 2010/0285372 Al, Nov. 11, 2010); and claims 7, 8, 16 and 17 over Okada, Kinoshita, Lee in view of Emura2 (WO 2008/065900 Al, June 5, 2008). (Final Act. 2---6). BACKGROUND Appellants' invention relates generally to a solid battery in which all of the constituent elements are composed of solid material. (Spec. 1-2). Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Brief: 1. A solid battery comprising: a positive electrode layer; a negative electrode layer; a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer, wherein at least one of the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer include an electrode active material, the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte, and the solid electrolyte has a NASICON-type structure expressed by a general expression Lii+xM1xMn2-x(P04)3, where M1 is Al or Ga, and Mn is Ti or Ge, the solid battery further comprising a material including LiZr2(P04)3 interposed between the solid electrolyte and the electrode active material of the at least one of the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer such that the solid electrolyte does not contact the electrode active material of the at least one of the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer. 2 The Examiner relies on U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0028775 Al for English translation of this document. (Final Act. 5). 2 Appeal2015-003250 Application 13/477,136 OPINION Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims are unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer. 3 We add the following: Appellants argue the combination of Okada, Kinoshita and Lee teaches having the solid electrolyte in direct contact with the electrode active materials, consequently the combination teaches away from the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 9. (App. Br. 4--5). Appellants further argue Emura does not remedy the deficiencies of Okada, Kinoshita and Lee. (Id. at 6). The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Okada, Kinoshita and Lee would have suggested a solid battery comprising a material including LiZr2(P04)3 interposed between the solid electrolyte and the electrode active material of the at least one of the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer such that the solid electrolyte does not contact the electrode active material as required by the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 9? We answer this question in the negative. 3 The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the Final Action and the Answer. (Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 2-5). 3 Appeal2015-003250 Application 13/477,136 The Examiner found4 Okada teaches a solid battery comprising a solid electrolyte having a NASICON type phosphate compound such as LAGP or LATP. (Final Act. 2) The Examiner recognizes Okada does not disclose the use of LiZr2(P04)3. The Examiner, to address this difference, relies on Kinoshita teaching the use of LiZr2(P04)3 as an oxide-based inorganic solid electrolyte. (Id. at 3). The Examiner relies on Lee for describing a solid battery comprising a multilayer solid electrolyte. (Id. at 4). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to have utilized the multi- layered electrolyte structure of Lee in the modified solid electrolyte material of Okada and Kinoshita because Lee teaches that thin-film solid-state battery composite structures containing two or more solid-state electrolyte layers are shown to be more efficiently and rapidly produced. (Id.). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. We agree with the Examiner that the cited prior art renders obvious the claimed subject matter. In response to Appellants' arguments the Examiner states The arrangement of Lee et al. provides at least one rapid deposit layer 16, 26, including material of the formula Li1 +xAlx Tb-x(P04)3, between a solid electrolyte layer 18 and a cathode layer 14. As a result, Lee teaches that the solid electrolyte layer 18 is between the at least one rapid deposit layer 16, 26 and the anode 20 such that the anode 20 does not contact the at least one rapid deposit layer 16, 26. Where the solid electrolyte 18 is the LiZr2(P04)3 material, as taught by Kinoshita, the limitations of claim 1 and 9 are satisfied. (Ans. 6). 4 Appellants have presented arguments directed to independent claims 1 and 9 together. Appellants have not separately addressed the dependent claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16 and 17. (App. Br. 6). Appellants also do not provide substantive arguments addressing separately rejected claims 7, 8, 16 and 17. (Id.). We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 4 Appeal2015-003250 Application 13/477,136 Consequently, after consideration of Appellants' arguments, we are unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's determination of obviousness. ORDER The Examiner's prior art rejections are affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation