Venkataramani Anandan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2019

14864042 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2019)

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.
14/864,042 09/24/2015 Venkataramani Anandan 83563970 4066
28395 7590 12/23/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
LEONG, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VENKATARAMANI ANANDAN,
ANDREW ROBERT DREWS, and MOHAN KARULKAR
Appeal 2019–002776
Application 14/864,042
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–12 and 14–15. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002776
Application 14/864,042

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 10 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
10. A method of making a solid state battery including a solid
ceramic electrolyte and metal electrode, comprising:
applying an acidic chemical flux to the electrolyte or metal
electrode;
arranging the electrolyte and metal electrode proximate to
each other such that the flux is disposed between the electrolyte
and metal electrode; and
applying heat such that the flux prepares a surface of the
electrolyte and the metal electrode adheres to the surface of the
electrolyte.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Chiang et al. US 2009/0246636 A1 Oct. 01, 2009
Birke et al. US 2013/0122398 A1 May 16, 2013

THE REJECTION
Claims 10–12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Birke in view of Chiang.

OPINION
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth by each party, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports Appellant’s position in the record. We thus reverse the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-002776
Application 14/864,042

3
decision to reject the appealed claims for the reasons provided by Appellants
in the record, and add the following for emphasis.
The dispositive issue in this case is claim interpretation of “solid
ceramic electrolyte” recited in lines 1–2 of claim 10.2 It is the Examiner’s
position that this phrase encompasses the ceramic electrolyte particles taught
in Birke. Ans. 4–5. It is Appellant’s position that the meaning of this phrase
does not include the particles of Birke. Reply Br. 2–4. Therein, Appellant
relies upon the Specification (as identified in the Reply Brief) for disclosing
a solid ceramic electrolyte having first and second solid ceramic 22 surfaces
40, 42, as shown in Figure 1 of the Specification, that is reproduced on page
3 of the Reply Brief.
Based on the Specification disclosure as discussed in the Reply Brief,
Appellant submits nothing in the Specification indicates that the claimed
solid ceramic electrolyte is a particle. Reply Br. 4. Appellant states that the
word “particle” is not used in the Specification. Id. Appellant submits that
the Examiner's interpretation of “solid ceramic electrolyte” is therefore not
reasonable. We are persuaded by such argument, and further note that the
Examiner does not direct us to any evidence in the Specification to support
the claim interpretation offered by the Examiner. We note that the scope of
the claims in patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the
claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable

2 We note the claim 10 also recites “the electrolyte” in lines 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8
of claim 10 and it is understood that this is in reference to the “solid ceramic
electrolyte” recited in lines 1–2 of claim 10. Thus, the recitation of “the
electrolyte” as it appears in the claim is synonymous with “solid ceramic
electrolyte”.
Appeal 2019-002776
Application 14/864,042

4
construction in light of the specification as they would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term.’”)
Given that “solid ceramic electrolyte” does not include solid ceramic
electrolyte particles, we agree with Appellant that Birke does not suggest
applying an acidic chemical flux to a solid ceramic electrolyte or metal
electrode as required by the claim.
We thus reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–12, 14
and 15
103 Birke in view of
Chiang
10–12, 14
and 15

Overall
Outcome
10–12, 14
and 15

REVERSED