Ex Parte Zhamu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

12009259 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017)

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.
12/009,259 01/18/2008 Aruna Zhamu 3677
138432 7590 02/24/2017
Nanntek Instruments;
EXAMINER
attn: IP Department
1240 McCook Ave
LI, JUN
Dayton, OH 45404 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2017 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 @ nanotekinstruments. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARUNA ZHAMU and BOR Z. JANG1
Appeal 2015-007917
Application 12/009,259
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 2—10, 12—17, 19, 20, and 22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Aruna Zhamu and Bor Jang are currently identified as the real parties in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-007917
Application 12/009,259
Appellants claim a lithium battery comprising an anode, a cathode,
and a non-aqueous electrolyte wherein the cathode comprises nanometer-
scaled, electrically conductive filaments and a micron- or nanometer-scaled
coating deposited on the filaments wherein the coating comprises a cathode
active material capable of absorbing and desorbing lithium ions (sole
independent claim 22). The cathode active material may include, for
example, oxides of certain metals such as cobalt, nickel, manganese, and
vanadium as well as combinations thereof (claim 8).
A copy of representative claim 22, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
22. A lithium battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and a non-
aqueous electrolyte disposed between said anode and said cathode, wherein
said cathode comprises a hybrid nano-filament composition comprising:
a. an aggregate of nanometer-scaled, electrically conductive filaments
that are substantially interconnected, intersected, or percolated to form a
porous, electrically conductive filament network, wherein said filaments
have a length and a diameter or thickness with said diameter or thickness
being less than 500 nm; and
b. micron- or nanometer-scaled coating that is deposited on a surface
of said filaments, wherein said coating comprises a cathode active material
capable of absorbing and desorbing lithium ions and said coating has a
thickness less than 1 pm.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
independent claim 22 and dependent claims 2, 3, 8—10, 12—17, 19, and
20 over Firsich (US 2009/0068553 A1 published Mar. 12, 2009) in view of
Ariel (US 2004/0258984 A1 published Dec. 23, 2004) and Choi (US
2006/0257745 A1 published Nov. 16, 2006) (Ans. 3—6);
dependent claims 4—6 over the above references in combination with
Kim (Kim et al., Characteristics of Supercapacitor Electrodes of PBI-based
2
Appeal 2015-007917
Application 12/009,259
Carton Nanofiber Web Prepared by Electrospinning, Electrochemica Acta,
Vol. 50, pp. 877-881 (2004)) {id. at 6-7); and
dependent claim 7 over all the above references in combination with
Viculis (Viculis et al., Intercalation and exfoliation routes to graphite
nanoplatelets, J. Mater. Chem., 15, pp.974-978 (2005)) {id. at 7—8).
In addition, the Examiner provisionally and non-provisionally rejects
all appealed claims on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over the respective claims of three
copending applications and one US patent each in combination with Ariel
and Choi (id. at 9—11).
We summarily sustain these obviousness-type double patenting
rejections because they have not been challenged by Appellants in this
appeal {see Br. 19).
We also will sustain the § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in
the Answer and below.
In rejecting independent claim 22, the Examiner finds that Firsich
discloses an electrode for a lithium battery that may be used as an anode and
comprises nanofiber filaments having a silicon coating thereon capable of
absorbing and desorbing lithium ions (Ans. 3). The Examiner additionally
finds that Firsich does not expressly teach the electrode being used as a
cathode or the electrolyte being non-aqueous as claimed {id. at 4). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use the electrode of
Firsich as a cathode when combined with an appropriate anode as suggested
3
Appeal 2015-007917
Application 12/009,259
by Ariel (id.) and more specifically to modify the silicon coating of the
electrode to include the transition metal oxides defined by dependent claim 8
and taught by Ariel as preferable cathode materials (id. at 5). Moreover, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the resulting
lithium battery with a non-aqueous electrolyte as taught by Choi (id. at 4—5).
Appellants argue that “no battery scientist would use Si as a cathode
active material in a lithium-ion battery [because]. . . [t]here is no electrode
that could be used as an anode in a lithium battery such that Firsich’s
electrode would be [able to] function as an anode [sic, cathode]” (Br. 9). As
support for this argument Appellants rely on two charts reproduced in the
Appeal Brief that are said to “provide the most commonly used anode
materials . . . and cathode materials ... for lithium-ion batteries [and] . . .
clearly show that Si is an anode active material, not a cathode active
material” (id. at 10; see also id. at 11).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive for several reasons. As
correctly indicated by the Examiner (Ans. 13), the argument is contradicted
by Ariel’s express teaching that “[a]t least one of the anode and cathode may
include silicon and/or lithium” (Ariel 111).2 Further, we agree with the
Examiner that the charts reproduced in the Appeal Brief have little probative
value because they are not presented and discussed by one having ordinary
skill in this art and because, as explicitly described by Appellants (Br. 10),
2 Appellants state that the Examiner has taken Ariel’s above quoted teaching
“out of context” (Br. 15) but do not persuasively explain why this teaching
fails to support the Examiner’s interpretation of it.
4
Appeal 2015-007917
Application 12/009,259
they are limited to only the most commonly used (rather than all) anode and
cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries (Ans. 14). In addition, the
Examiner properly points out that Appellants’ argument is focused on the
use of silicon alone as a cathode active material rather than the combination
of cathode active materials encompassed by independent claim 22 and
expressly required by dependent claim 8 (id. at 15). With further regard to
the Examiner’s point, we emphasize that Appellants do not challenge or
otherwise address the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious to include the transition metal oxides taught by Ariel and required
by claim 8 in the silicon coating of Firsich (see generally Br.; compare Ans.
5). We also emphasize that Appellants do not refute the Examiner’s
aforementioned responses to their arguments (i.e., no Reply Brief has been
filed).
Appellants remaining arguments concerning the other applied
references also fail to show harmful error on the Examiner’s part. For
example, Appellants’ discussion of Choi (Br. 17—18) does not contest with
reasonable specificity the Examiner’s determination that Choi would have
suggested providing the lithium battery of Firsich with a non-aqueous
electrolyte (Ans. 4—5). Similarly, Appellants note that Kim is directed to
supercapacitors rather than lithium batteries (Br. 19) but do not meaningfully
explain why Kim fails to suggest providing Firsich’s nanofibers in the form
of electro-spun nanofibers as determined by the Examiner in rejecting claims
4—6 (Ans. 6—7).
For the reasons given above and in the Answer, we sustain the § 103
rejections of the appealed claims.
5
Appeal 2015-007917
Application 12/009,259
The decision of the Examiner is 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
6