LG CHEM, LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 7, 2020

2020001236 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2020)

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.
13/845,829 03/18/2013 Hyo Seok Park LGCHEM 3.9-174
CON CON
2310
86765 7590 12/07/2020
LGCHEM
Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP
20 Commerce Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
EXAMINER
MCDERMOTT, HELEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2020 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):
eOfficeAction@lernerdavid.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYO SEOK PARK, YOUNG JOON SHIN, and
HYUN WOO PARK
Appeal 2020-001236
Application 13/845,829
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), The Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 5, 18, 19, 24, 30–35, 37, and 39.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LG
CHEM, LTD (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-001236
Application 13/845,829

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a battery pack comprising secondary
batteries and holders. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A battery pack comprising a plurality of secondary batteries and
a plurality of holders, each secondary battery comprising:

a rectangular electrode assembly having four corners and
including a first electrode lead projecting in a first direction and a
second electrode lead projecting opposite the first direction, the
electrode assembly extending in the first direction and a second
direction perpendicular to the first direction; and

a pouch type case comprising a sealing part having an outer
perimeter and an inner perimeter for sealing an upper case and a lower
case, and a space for accommodating the electrode assembly, the
sealing part having four edges including two short edges and two long
edges, the two long edges being longer than the two short edges, the
two long edges being perpendicular to the two short edges and
defining a pair of diagonals;

wherein a portion of the space, the inner perimeter and the outer
perimeter of the sealing part include trimming portions indented
toward the electrode assembly, ones of the trimming portions being
respectively disposed adjacent each of the four corners of the
electrode assembly at a junction of one of the short edges, and one of
the long edges on one of the pair of diagonals, and

wherein the plurality of secondary batteries are stacked on each
other in a third direction perpendicular to each of the first and second
directions, each holder extending in the third direction and engaged in
a respective indentation in the outer perimeter of the sealing part of
each of the secondary batteries at one of the trimming portions, each
holder having a cross-sectional shape corresponding to a shape of the
indentation.
Appeal 2020-001236
Application 13/845,829

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Yageta US 2006/0210872 A1 Sept. 21, 2006
Lee ‘683 US 2007/0231683 A1 Oct. 4, 2007
Ogami US 2008/0138698 A1 June 12, 2008
Lee ‘903 WO 2008/023903 A1 Feb. 28, 2008
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4, 5, 18, 19, 24, 30–35, 37, and 39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lee ‘683 in view of Yageta, Lee ’903, and Ogami.
OPINION
We need address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1.
Lee ‘683 discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode
assembly (300) in a battery case (200) having a lower case member (220)
with depressed steps (220a, 220b, 220c) which the electrode assembly (300)
tightly contacts so that when an external force is applied against the
electrode assembly (300)’s end having its two leads (410, 420), such as by
dropping the battery, the electrode assembly does not shift inside the lower
case member (220) to cause distortion resulting in short circuiting contact
between the electrode assembly (300)’s anode and cathode taps (42) or
lead (60) (¶¶ 12, 43–45, 47; Figs. 2, 4, 7).
Yageta uses a thermal process under reduced pressure to form around
a cell element (13) having a lead (12a or 12b) on each of its opposing ends a
casing film (11) spaced from the cell element (13)’s sides by a close-contact
portion (15) to relax the force on the casing film (11) along the sides when
the pressure is increased to atmospheric pressure, thereby suppressing
micro-crack formation in the casing film (11) (¶¶ 8, 45, 50; Fig. 6).
Appeal 2020-001236
Application 13/845,829

4
Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner concludes (Final Rej. 6):
[It] would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of invention to form the second electrode lead to project opposite
the first direction and to add trimming portions to the sealing part of
Lee '683 on the sides from which the electrode leads are not drawn
out, as in Yageta, such that trimming portions are formed at each of
the four corners of the electrode assembly, with the reasonable
expectation of improving sealing reliability by providing a close
contact zone to relax a force on the sealing part.

The Examiner does not establish that Yageta’s formation of a close-
contact zone (15) on the cell element (13)’s sides requires that the leads
(12a, 12b) be on opposite ends of the cell element (13). Thus, the Examiner
does not establish that Yageta would have provided one of ordinary skill in
the art with an apparent reason to place Lee ‘683’s leads (410, 420) on
opposite ends of the electrode assembly (300).
Moreover, although pouch cases containing rectangular electrode
assemblies having leads on opposite ends were known in the art (Appellant’s
Fig. 4), the Examiner does not establish that the applied prior art would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee ‘683’s depressed steps
(220a, 220b, 220c) for use in such a pouch case or explain how one of
ordinary skill in the art would have done so. Although the Examiner states
that such modification is “mere duplication of parts” or “obvious matter of
design choice” (Ans. 7), the Examiner does not adequately explain why
these rationales apply under this fact pattern (see Reply Br. 3).
Appeal 2020-001236
Application 13/845,829

5
Lee ‘903 discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode
assembly (300) in tight contact with a battery case (200)’s lower case
member (220)’s upper end step (220a) step and side steps (200b, 200c) but,
to provide easy installation of the electrode assembly (300) in the lower case
member (220), not in tight contact with the lower case member (220)’s
corners (204) (p. 15, l. 22 – p.16, l. 17; Figs. 4, 5).2
The Examiner states (Ans. 14):
Lee '903 is not being relied on to teach the positions of the indented
portions, but rather is merely being relied on the show that at portions
where the inner perimeter of the sealed part is indented, it is obvious
to also indent the outer perimeter of the sealed part. Despite being
located at different locations, one of ordinary skill in the art
nevertheless would have recognized the similarity between the
indented portions of Lee '903 and the indented portions of Lee '683.
Accordingly, the comparison of Figs. 5 and 6 in Lee '903 would have
been sufficient to suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the outer perimeter of the sealing part at the portions where the inner
perimeter of the sealing part is indented in Lee '683.

The Examiner concludes (Final Rej. 7):
[I]t would have been obvious [in view of Lee ‘903] to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to indent the outer
perimeter of the sealing part at the trimming portions of Lee '683
as a known equivalent. When the outer perimeter is indented, a
distance between the inner perimeter and the outer perimeter of
the sealing part will be constant, both an inner surface and an
outer surface of the sealing part will be indented toward the
electrode assembly and the inner perimeter and the outer
perimeter of the sealing part will include congruous corners.

2 The Examiner relies upon Ogami for a disclosure of battery cells (101–
108) comprising sleeves (74) corresponding to the Appellant’s holders (Final
Rej. 8).
Appeal 2020-001236
Application 13/845,829

6
Lee ‘683 discloses (¶ 46):
[B]oth sides of the upper end sealing part 232 have a relatively
large width due to the formation of the steps 220a and 220b, and
the both [sic] sides of the upper end sealing part 232 are securely
attached to the upper case member 210 by thermal welding
during the assembly process of the battery. Consequently, the
steps 220a and 220b are maintained in a more stable structure.

The Examiner does not establish that in view of Lee ‘683’s disclosure
that the upper end sealing part (232; Fig. 4) is thermally welded to the upper
case member (210) and maintains the steps (220a, 220b) in a more stable
structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason
to indent the upper end sealing part (232).
Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellant’s claimed battery pack.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 18,
19, 24, 30–
35, 37, 39
103(a) Lee ‘683, Yageta,
Lee ’903, Ogami
1, 4, 5, 18,
19, 24, 30–
35, 37, 39

REVERSED