Ex Parte Yamada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

11994068 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHIHO YAMADA, ERI HIROSE, YOSHINORI
TAKAMUKU, and HIDEKI SHIMAMOTO
____________________

Appeal 2011-007652
Application 11/994,068
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-8 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2011-007652
Application 11/994,068

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is an electric double layer capacitor for
use in various electronic devices (Spec. 1:6-7).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. An electric double layer capacitor comprising:

a first collector made of metal foil;

a first polarizable electrode layer provided on the first
collector, the first polarizable electrode layer mainly containing
activated carbon made from phenol resin, the first polarizable
electrode layer having a surface roughness not smaller than
0.5μm and not larger than 0.6μm, the first polarizable electrode
layer having an electrode density ranging from 0.5 g/cm3 to 0.7
g/cm3;

a second collector made of metal foil;

a second polarizable electrode layer provided on the
second collector and facing the first polarizable electrode layer,
the second polarizable electrode layer mainly containing
activated carbon made from phenol resin, the second
polarizable electrode layer having a surface roughness not
smaller than 0.5μm and not larger than 0.6μm, the second
polarizable electrode layer having an electrode density ranging
from 0.5 g/cm3 to 0.7 g/cm3;

a separator provided between the first polarizable
electrode layer and the second polarizable electrode layer, the
separator having an insulating property; and

a driving electrolyte impregnated in the first polarizable
electrode layer and the second polarizable electrode layer.

Appeal 2011-007652
Application 11/994,068

3
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable based upon the teachings of Yamakawa (JP Publication
Number 2005-116855, published Apr. 28, 2005).1
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable based upon the teachings of Yamakawa and Hori (JP
Publication Number 2000-169129, published June 20, 2000).
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable based upon the teachings of Yamakawa and Appellants’
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
The Examiner rejected claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable based upon the teachings of Yamakawa and Maeda (JP
Publication Number 2004-111719, published Apr. 8, 2004).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Yamakawa teaches all the elements of the
claimed invention except for first and second polarizable electrode layers
having a surface roughness not smaller than 0.5µm and not larger than
0.6µm. The Examiner then finds it would have been obvious to an
ordinarily skilled artisan in light of Yamakawa’s disclosure of a roughness
less than 2µm to include a surface roughness between 0.5µm and 0.6µm.
(Ans. 6).
Appellants contend the claimed surface roughness having a range of
0.5µm to 0.6µm exhibits unexpected superior results to those outside the

1 The Examiner withdrew various rejections in the final office action after an
Examiner interview (Ans. 3-4).
Appeal 2011-007652
Application 11/994,068

4
claimed range as evidenced by Figures 3A and 3B. Additionally, Appellants
assert, this range is not suggested by Yamakawa’s range of less than 2µm.
(App. Br. 8). We agree with Appellants that Figures 3A and 3B illustrate the
criticality of the claimed range, and there is nothing in Yamakawa
suggesting this criticality or superior results based on the claimed surface
roughness. Thus, we conclude the Examiner has erred in finding claims 1, 4,
and 5 obvious over Yamakawa. Additionally, we conclude the Examiner
erred in finding claims 2, 3, and 6-8 obvious over various combinations of
Yamakawa in view of Hori, AAPA, or Maeda, as none of these references
cures the deficiency of Yamakawa.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh/llw