Ex Parte Yamaguchi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2004

09262325 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board

Paper No. 31

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte AKIRA YAMAGUCHI
______________

Appeal No. 2004-1101
Application 09/262,325
______________

HEARD: JULY 15, 2004
_______________

Before WALTZ, KRATZ, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative
Patent Judges.

PAWLIKOWSKI, 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 13 and 16-25.
Claim 13 is representative of the subject matter on
appeal and is set forth below, wherein the text in bold is
for emphasis only:
13. A nonaqueous-electrolyte secondary battery
comprising:

a battery casing; and

a coiled electrode contained in said battery casing;

Appeal No. 2004-1101
Application No. 09/262,325

2
wherein said coiled electrode comprises an
elongated positive electrode, and elongated negative
electrode, and a separator, said positive electrode
and negative electrode separated by the separator and
wound so that the positive electrode forms an
outermost electrode of the coil;

wherein said positive electrode comprises a
positive-electrode mix layer and a positive-electrode
collector made of a metallic foil having a first
surface, a second surface, an outermost end, and an
innermost end;

wherein said positive-electrode mix layer is not
formed on either the first or second surface of the
positive electrode collector at the outermost end of
the positive electrode collector;

wherein said positive-electrode mix layer is
formed on either but not both of the first or second
surfaces of the positive electrode collector at a
position adjacent to the outermost end of the positive
electrode collector;

wherein said positive-electrode mix layer is
formed on both the first and second surface of the
positive electrode collector on at least a portion of
the positive electrode collector;

wherein said negative electrode comprises a
negative-electrode mix layer containing a negative-
electrode material which permits lithium ions to be
doped/dedoped and a negative-electrode collector made
of a metallic foil having a first surface, a second
surface, an outermost end, and an innermost end;

wherein said negative-electrode mix layer is not
formed on either the first or second surface of the
negative electrode collector at the outermost end of
the negative electrode collector;

wherein said negative-electrode mix layer
material is formed on both the first and second
surface of the negative electrode collector on at

Appeal No. 2004-1101
Application No. 09/262,325

3
least a portion of the negative electrode collector;

wherein a negative electrode lead is formed on
the outermost end of the outer surface of the negative
electrode collector;

wherein the outermost end of said negative-electrode
collector is positioned, in the direction of the innermost
ends to the outermost ends of the negative-electrode and
positive electrode collectors, more forward than the
outermost end of the positive electrode collector;

wherein d is the diameter of the coil electrode and L is
the distance from the outermost end of said negative-
electrode collector to the outermost end of said positive-
electrode collector and the relationship 0 ⎯ L α пd is
satisfied; and

wherein insulating members are placed on the two
vertical surfaces of the coiled electrode.

The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:

Narukawa et al. (Narukawa) 5,508,122 Apr. 16, 1996
Yamashita 5,989,743 Nov. 23, 1999
Linden, “Handbook of Batteries,” Second edition, pages
3.16; 5.3;14.20; 14.35;14.84; 33.4; 36.29; 36.43; and 35.44
(1995)

Claims 13 and 16-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
as being obvious over Yamashita in view of Narukawa and
further in view of Linden.
OPINION
Critical to the determinations made herein is the
claim interpretation of claim 13, which is in dispute.
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner states that the
claim does not require the outermost end of the negative

Appeal No. 2004-1101
Application No. 09/262,325

4
electrode collector to be more forward than the outermost
end of the positive electrode collector “on the last wind
of both the positive and negative electrode current
collectors”.1 Answer, page 4. The examiner states that if
one follows a direction from the innermost ends to the
outermost ends of the negative electrode and positive
electrode collectors, the outermost end of the negative
electrode collector as depicted in Figure 5 of Yamashita is
more forward than the outermost end of the positive
electrode collector. Answer, page 4. On page 3 of Paper
No. 22, the examiner states that even though the positive
electrode collector shown in Figure 5 of Yamashita is
coiled more times than the negative electrode collector,
Figure 5 clearly shows that, in a direction from the
innermost ends to the outermost ends of the collectors, the
outermost end of the negative collector is more forward
than the outermost end of the positive collector.
On page 3 of the brief, appellant argues that the
clear meaning of the claim language, in the context of a
coiled structure, is that for the end of the negative
collector to be forward than the end of the positive
collector, the negative collector must extend beyond the
positive collector. Appellant argues that if one uncoils
the electrode shown in Figure 5 of Yamashita, it is the end
of the positive collector which comes first.

1 We disagree with the examiner’s statement here. The outermost end of
the collector (negative or positive) would have to be at the end of the
collector, which would be at the end of the last wind.

Appeal No. 2004-1101
Application No. 09/262,325

5
We find that appellant’s Figure 4 shows 6a, which is
the location of the outermost end of negative electrode 6.
Figure 4 also shows 3a, which is the location of the
outermost end of positive electrode 3. As one travels from
the innermost end of the negative electrode collector to
the outermost end of the negative electrode collector at
6a, one travels further to reach location 6a as compared to
when one travels from the innermost end of the positive
electrode collector to the outermost end of the positive
electrode collector at 3a. In this way, the location of 6a
is more forward than the location of 3a.
In contrast, Figure 5 of Yamuguchi depicts the
outermost end of the negative electrode collector at item
12. The location of the outermost end of the positive
electrode collector is located at the end of the dashed
line shown in Figure 5. Therefore, as one travels from the
innermost end of the positive electrode collector to the
outermost end of the positive electrode collector, one
travels further than when one travels from the innermost
end of the negative electrode collector to the outermost
end of the positive electrode collector (at location 12).
In this way, the location of the outermost end of the
positive electrode collector is more forward than the
outermost end of the negative electrode collector (item
12). This is the opposite of what is claimed in
appellant’s claim 13.
Hence, we disagree with the examiner’s position and
reverse the rejection. The other applied references do not
remedy this deficiency in the rejection.

Appeal No. 2004-1101
Application No. 09/262,325

6
CONCLUSION
The rejection is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).

REVERSED

Thomas A. Waltz )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Peter F. Kratz ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Beverly A. Pawlikowski )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAP/cam

Appeal No. 2004-1101
Application No. 09/262,325

7
David R. Metzger, Esq.
SONNENSCHEIN,NATH & ROSENTHAL
P. O. Box 061080 Wacker Drive Station
Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-1080