Ex Parte Yakovleva et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612198313 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/198,313 08/26/2008 Marina Yakovleva 073396.0759 3844 45309 7590 12/27/2016 Williams; Mullen EXAMINER 222 Central Park Avenue NGUYEN, HAIDUNG D #1700 Virginia Beach, VA 23462-3035 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): ip @ williamsmullen. com dance @ williamsmullen. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARINA YAKOVLEVA, YUAN GAO, KENNETH BRIAN FITCH, PRAKASH THYAGA PALEPU, YANGXING LI, and CHRISTOPHER JAY WOLTERMANN Appeal 2015-007313 Application 12/198,313 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3 and 4. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is FMC Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-007313 Application 12/198,313 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the invention as relating to stabilized lithium metal powder (“SLMP”) having improved air and solvent stability and having a longer storage life. Spec. 12. The present invention protects lithium metal powder with “a substantially continuous layer of a polymer” to provide protection and improve storage life. Id. at 19. Claim 4, reproduced below with emphases added to certain key recitations, is the only independent claim on appeal and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 4. An anode comprising a host material capable of absorbing or desorbing lithium in an electrochemical system and a stabilized polymer-coated lithium dispersed in the host material, wherein the stabilized lithium metal powder is coated with a continuous polymer layer having a thickness of 25 to 200nm the polymer selected from the group consisting of polyurethanes, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinyl fluoride, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrenes, polyethylenes, polypropylenes, polyformaldehyde, styrenebutadiene-styrene block polymers, ethylene vinyl acetate, ethylene acrylic acid copolymers, polyethylene oxide, polyimides, polythiophenes, poly(para- phenylene), polyaniline, poly(p-phenylenevinylene), silica titania-based copolymers, unsaturated polycarboxylic acids and polysiloxanes. Appeal Br.2 9 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Holman US 2004/0018430 A1 Jan. 29,2004 2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed August 5, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed March 16, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 5, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed July 31, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appeal 2015-007313 Application 12/198,313 Seung-Taek Hong, et al., Surface characterization of emulsified litium powder electrode, Electrochimica Acta 50, 535 (2004) (hereinafter “Hong”). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: Rejection 1. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Holman. Ans. 2. Rejection 2. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Holman in view of Hong. Id. at 3. ANALYSIS Appellants present no separate arguments as to claim 3 which depends from claim 4. Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to independent claim 4, and claim 3 stands or falls with claim 4. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cfi Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action (and the February 10, 2014, Non-Final Office Action referenced therein) and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. 3 Appeal 2015-007313 Application 12/198,313 The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Holman. The Examiner finds that Holman discloses an anode comprising lithium material encapsulated with electrically conductive material to form a continuous layer on the outer surface of the electroactive particles. Ans. 2 (providing citations to Holman); see also Ans. 4—5. The electrically conductive material may be, for example, polytetrafluoroethylene and may be 25 to 200 nm thick. Id.', see also Holman || 69, 90, 97. The Examiner also finds that Holman teaches that electroactive material particles are usually mixed with a host material such as graphite or carbon black. Ans. 2; see also Holman || 7, 8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to mix the electroactive material with a host material “in order to assure sufficient levels of electronic conductivity of the electrodes as suggested by Holman.” Ans. 3. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Appellants argue that Holman does not teach lithium anodes because the lithium of Holman “is totally supplied by the cathode.” Appeal Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 2—3. The evidence is contrary to this argument. Holman teaches that the electroactive material of its anode may be lithium or one of many various lithium-based compounds. Holman | 88; see also Ans. 4—5; Holman Table 1. Holman also teaches that “[a] coating can be used on the . . . anode electroactive material. . . .” Holman | 89; see also Ans. 5; Holman || 59, 69, 97. Holman also teaches that its anode is capable of absorbing or desorbing lithium in an electric system. See Appeal Br. 6 (quoting Holman | 54 which explains that lithium ions flow from cathode to anode when charging and flow from the anode to the cathode during discharge). 4 Appeal 2015-007313 Application 12/198,313 Appellants also attempt to distinguish Holman based upon a discharge process where “electrons are collected from the anode and passed to the cathode through an external circuit.” Appeal Br. 5. Claim 4, however, does not recite an external circuit. Appellants also argue that Holman does not disclose “an anode or the coated particle being dispersed in the anode host material.” Appeal Br. 7. Holman, however, discusses that it is important that “electroactive materials of the electrodes come into direct contact with the electrolyte material.” Holman 17. Holman then teaches the importance of mixing the electroactive materials with host material (i.e., graphite or carbon black) to ensure this contact: “To assure sufficient levels of electronic conductivity, the particles of electroactive material of the electrodes are usually mixed with fine particles of an electrically conductive material such as graphite or carbon black.” Id. (emphasis added). In the context of this paragraph of Holman, Holman uses the typical meaning of the word “electrode”—an electrode may be either a cathode or an anode. See also Holman || 6 (“A solid lithium battery is charged by applying a voltage between the battery’s electrodes (e.g. cathode and anode networks.”), 89 (referring back to same “electroactive material” referenced in paragraph 7 by stating that the “[a] coating can be used ... on the anode electroactive material. . . .”). In reply, Appellants argue for the first time that “mixing” as described by Holman is distinct from being “dispersed” as recited in claim 4. We need not consider this argument because it is raised for the first time in reply. 41 C.F.R. § 41.41(a)(2). Moreover, even if considered, Appellants provide no credible evidence or persuasive explanation as for why mixing in the context 5 Appeal 2015-007313 Application 12/198,313 of Holman is not the same as dispersion in the context of claim 4. Reply Br. 3. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation