Ex Parte Yakovleva et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201413151371 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2014) 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. 13/151,371 06/02/2011 Marina Yakovleva 208-6185DV 4799 20792 7590 12/24/2014 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER FERRE, ALEXANDRE F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1788 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARINA YAKOVLEVA, YUAN GAO, KENNETH BRIAN FITCH, B. TROY DOVER, PRAKASH THYAGA PALEPU, JIAN-XIN LI, BRIAN ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER CARLIN, YANGXING LI ____________ Appeal 2013-002520 Application 13/151,371 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an anode including a lithium-sorbing host material and stabilized lithium metal powder coated with wax. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. 1. (Previously Presented) An anode comprising a host material capable of absorbing or desorbing lithium in an electrochemical Appeal 2013-002520 Application 13/151,371 2 system wherein, a stabilized lithium metal powder coated with a wax is dispersed in the host material, wherein the wax has a thickness of 20 nm to 200 nm. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims: Mary Marshall, “Microencapsulation of Lithium”, U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information Service, Technical Report ADA162987, Dec. 31, 1985. Ajit Mujumdar et al, “Improvement of humidity resistance of magnesium powder using dry particle coating”, Powder Technology 140 (2004) 86-97. Dover US 5,976,403 Nov. 2, 1999 Seung-Taek Hong et al, “Surface characterization of emulsified lithium powder electrode”, Electrochimica Acta 50 (2004) 535-539. L. Zhang et al, “Formation of organic coating on ultrafine silver particles using a gas-phase process”, Aerosol Science 35 (2004) 457-471. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Hong. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dover in view of Zhang, Mujumdar, and Hong. We affirm the stated rejections for substantially the fact findings, reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Answer.1 We offer the following for emphasis. 1 A Decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection in related Application No. 11/870,544 (Appeal No. 2013-002344) was issued on November 24, 2014. Appeal 2013-002520 Application 13/151,371 3 Appellants argue the rejected claims together as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we decide this appeal as each ground of rejection. Concerning the first stated obviousness rejection, the Examiner has found that Marshall describes the preparation of lithium powder encapsulated in (coated with) wax (Ans. 3; Marshall, pp. 2, 4, 9, Fig,. 1, and Tables 1 through 6). Moreover, the Examiner has determined that Hong teaches the use of lithium metal for electrodes dispersed in a carbonaceous (carbonate) host material (Ans. 3; Hong, Abstract, p. 536, col. 22). The Examiner has determined that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use the wax coated lithium powder taught by Marshall in an electrode like that taught by Hong because utilizing wax- coated lithium powder to protect the lithium metal as taught by Marshall and using such as a source of the lithium for the electrode of Hong would have been an inexpensive and effective technique for diminishing or preventing uneven current distribution due to a non-uniform lithium powder surface (Ans. 3; Hong, p. 535, col. 1). Moreover, the Examiner has determined that Marshall suggests using a wax coating having a suitable thickness for improving the shelf-life of the coated lithium and that the combined teachings of Marshall and Hong would have reasonably suggested utilizing a lithium wax coating having a thickness within the claimed range (Ans. 4). Appellants maintain that Marshall discloses microspheres comprising lithium particles embedded or encapsulated in wax, wherein each of the 2 A reference to a second column of Hong is to a right-side column on a cited page and any reference to a first column of Hong is to a left-side column of Hong on a cited page. Appeal 2013-002520 Application 13/151,371 4 microspheres of Marshall comprises numerous lithium particles embedded in a single mass of wax, which is in contrast to the individual lithium particles that are coated/encapsulated with wax as urged to be required by representative appealed claim 1 (Br. 4–5). Appellants urge that Hong does not cure the deficiencies of Marshall (Br. 5). Contrary to Appellants’ argument, however, representative claim 1 does not limit the claimed stabilized lithium metal powder coated with a wax to a product that includes only a single lithium particle coated with wax, as argued by Appellants to be the distinguishing claimed feature. In this regard, we concur with the Examiner’s assessment that a wax microsphere containing multiple individual lithium particles coated/surrounded by wax, as disclosed by Marshall, is embraced by the claim 1 language when claim 1is given its broadest reasonable construction when read in light of the subject specification as it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 8–9). In particular, we further note that an individual 30 micron dispersed lithium particle is surrounded by wax as shown in Figure 1 of Marshall, although the particle is adjacent to other coated lithium particles. Correspondingly, we observe that the subject Specification describes embodiments wherein stabilized lithium metal powder can be dispersed in a wax coating wherein the lithium dispersions can have metal particle sizes in the range of 10 through 500 microns (Spec. ¶¶ 0020–0022). Moreover, Appellants acknowledge that the claimed invention is not limited to the described embodiments set forth in the Specification (Spec. ¶¶ 10–12, 48). Appeal 2013-002520 Application 13/151,371 5 On this record and for reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, Appellants have not indicated reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness determination. It follows that we shall affirm the Examiner’s first-stated obviousness rejection. Concerning the Examiner’s second-stated obviousness rejection, we concur with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments asserting impermissible hindsight lacks persuasive merit for reasons presented by the Examiner (Br. 5–6; Ans. 5– 8, 10, 11). In this regard, Appellants assertion of a lack of incentive to utilize the wax coating of the secondary references (Zhang and/or Mujumdar) to coat and protect the lithium metal of Dover given an asserted remoteness /non-analogousness of the metals (silver/magnesium) of Zhang/Mujumdar to the lithium metal of Dover lacks any substantiation and does not address the rationale provided by the Examiner (Ans. 5, 6, 10–11). For reasons advanced above and in the Answer, it follows that we shall sustain the Examiner’s second-stated obviousness rejection. CONCLUSION/ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims 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 tc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation