11043301 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2012)

Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 23, 2012

11043301 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _________________ Ex parte KAIMIN CHEN, CRAIG L. SCHMIDT, and PAUL M. SKARSTAD _________________ Appeal 2010-006550 Application 11/043,301 Technology Center 1700 _________________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. KATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006550 Application 11/043,301 2 In this appeal, brought under 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants1 contest the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-19. (App. Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm that Examiner’s decision. The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nemoto2 and Call3. (Ans. 3-7.) Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of the rejected claims. (See App. Br. 6.) We focus on claim 1 in our review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants’ specification is directed to components of batteries used in implantable medical devices (“IMDs”), such as pacemakers. (See Spec., ¶¶ [01]-[02].) As explained in Appellants’ specification, IMD batteries use electrodes that are overlaid or coiled against each other, requiring a separator to avoid contact between the anode and cathode. (Id. ¶ [08].) If these batteries overheat the separator may melt. (Id.) One strategy to avoid melting of the separator has been to use multilayer separators. (Id., ¶ [09]- [10].) Appellants’ claimed assembly uses multilayer separators that reportedly have decreased internal resistance. (Id., ¶ [12].) Appellants’ claim 1 recites: An electrode assembly comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode; and 1 The real party in interest is said to be Medtronic, Inc. (App. Br. 3.) 2 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2001/0003024 A1, published June 7, 2001. 3 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0136945 A1, published September 26, 2002. Appeal 2010-006550 Application 11/043,301 3 a separator located between the first and second electrodes to prevent contact therebetween; the separator comprising: a first separator sheet disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the first separator sheet comprising two permeable outer layers each adhered to a microporous inner layer; and a second separator sheet disposed between the first and second electrodes, the second sheet consisting essentially of a single permeable layer; wherein the first separator sheet microporous inner layer has a first configuration porous to ion flow and a second configuration less porous to ion flow than the first configuration, and a first transition temperature between about 80 and 150 degrees C at which the microporous inner layer transforms from the first configuration to the second configuration, and in which the permeable outer layers maintain their structural integrity to a temperature of about 10 degrees C higher than the first transition temperature. (App. Br. 9, Claims App’x.) Thus, Appellants’ claimed electrode assembly includes two separator sheets: one comprises two permeable outer layers each adhered to a microporous inner layer and the other consists essentially of a single permeable layer. Nemoto teaches a battery with two electrodes and a separator. (Nemoto, ¶ [0022], Fig. 1; Ans. 4-5.) The separator taught in Nemoto has a three-layer structure of a polyethylene film sandwiched between two polypropylene films. (Nemoto, ¶ [0026]; Ans. 4.) Nemoto does not teach a second separator sheet. (Ans. 6.) App App Alter recit that be th mult Figu havin ¶ [00 poly Answ two eal 2010-0 lication 11 The Exa natively, t ed in claim have at lea inner and ilayer sepa re 6 depict g a polye 47].) The propylene We agre er, in wh sheets, as d 06550 /043,301 miner relie he Examin 1. In par st two mu stronger. rator in Fi s a battery thylene lay battery de (66, 66’, 6 e with the ich the arr epicted in s on Call er finds th ticular, Ca ltilayer pre (Call, ¶ [0 gure 6, wh separator er (64 and picted in F 8, and 68’ Examiner angement the figure 4 as teachin at Call di ll teaches cursors bo 025].) Cal ich is repr (60) with 64’), whi igure 6 al ). (Id.) ’s reasonin of the shee reproduc g a second scloses tw multilayer nded toge l provides oduced be two portio ch are bon so has out g provide ts in Call ed below. separator o separato battery se ther to all an embod low. ns (62 and ded togeth er layers o d on page is conside sheet. r sheets as parators ow them to iment of a 62’), eac er. (Call, f 10 of the red to be h App App (Ans inner The (See layer sepa “teac unpe mult “two recit to fa and C eal 2010-0 lication 11 . 10.) In t two bond fourth oute Ans. 10.) s recited i rator, even Appellan hes away” rsuasive. iple layers permeabl ed in claim ce bonding Appellan all do no 06550 /043,301 his figure, ed polyeth r polyprop Because A n claim 1 t though it ts’ argum from thei Appellant bonded “f e outer lay 1. (App. is not wi ts have fa t render th three of fo ylene laye ylene lay ppellants his config includes a ent that th r claimed s argue tha ace to fac ers each a Br. 7.) A thin the sc iled to per eir claimed 5 ur outer p rs constitu er constitu ’ first sepa uration is dditional l e combina separator ( t because e” they can dhered to ppellants ope of the suade us th electrode olypropyl te a “first tes a “seco rator shee within the ayers. tion of Ne see App. B the separa not teach a micropor have not p claimed se at the tea assembly ene layers separator nd separa t “compris scope of t moto and r. 6) is tors of Cal a first sep ous inner ersuaded u parator. chings of N obvious. and the sheet.” tor sheet.” es” the he claimed Call l have arator with layer,” as s that fac emoto e Appeal 2010-006550 Application 11/043,301 6 ORDER Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons given, the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nemoto and Call is sustained. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the Examiner. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED ssl