Ex Parte Maeda

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 2, 2012

10909343 (B.P.A.I. May. 2, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte TAISHI MAEDA
________________

Appeal 2010-012285
Application 10/909,343
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-14. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A cylindrical alkaline storage battery comprising:

a cylindrical case having a conductivity and an outside diameter
within a range from 13.5 mm to 14.5 mm; and

an electrode assembly contained in said case together with an alkaline
electrolyte, said electrode assembly including a negative plate and a positive
Appeal 2010-012285
Application 10/909,343

2
plate, said negative plate and positive plate being spirally wound with a
separator intervened therebetween, said negative plate forming an outermost
portion of said electrode assembly and being in contact with an inner wall of
said case, wherein

said positive plate has a thickness of 0.95 mm or greater,

said negative plate includes:

a negative substrate made of a metal conductive sheet and having a
plurality of through holes, an inner surface and an outer surface in view of a
radial direction of the electrode assembly, and

a negative active material layer deposited on the negative substrate
and containing a negative active material, the negative active material layer
including,

an inner layer covering the inner surface of the negative substrate and
having an overlapping portion overlapping said positive plate adjacent
thereto via said separator,

an outer layer covering the outer surface of the negative substrate and
having an overlapping portion, the overlapping portion overlapping said
positive plate adjacent thereto via said separator, and a non-overlapping
portion which does not overlap the positive plate via the separator and has a
thin section, the thin section being thinner than the overlapping portion
thereof and wound at an outermost part of the electrode assembly, and

a filler filled in the through holes of the negative substrate, the filler
having a filling portion distributed in an area of the negative substrate that is
covered by one of the overlapping portions of the inner layer and the outer
layer on at least one side thereof

a total amount of the negative active material contained in the
overlapping portions of the inner and outer layers and the filling portion of
the filler ranges from 75% to 100% of a total amount of the negative active
material contained in said negative plate; and,

Appeal 2010-012285
Application 10/909,343

3
a ratio of the sum of the negative capacities of the overlapping portion
and the filler distributed in the area of the negative substrate that is covered
by the overlapping portion on at least one side thereof to the positive
capacity is equal to 1.00 or greater.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 3):
Bando 5,965,295 Oct. 12, 1999
Fukunaga (as transl.) JP 3056521 Apr. 14, 2000
Endo (as transl.) JP 2000-311704 Nov. 07, 2000

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a cylindrical alkaline
storage battery comprising, inter alia, a cylindrical case having an outside
diameter within the range from 13.5 mm to 14.5 mm, an electrode assembly,
and a positive plate having a thickness of 0.95 mm or greater.
Appealed claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bando in view of Fukunaga. Claims 3
and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
stated combination of references further in view of Endo.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellant and the Examiner. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement
with Appellant that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, for essentially
those reasons expressed by Appellant, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections.
We agree with Appellant that the battery of Bando is not disclosed as
having an outside diameter within the claimed range of from 13.5 mm to
14.5 mm, and a positive plate having the claimed thickness of 0.95 mm or
greater. While the Examiner acknowledges that Bando does not disclose a
Appeal 2010-012285
Application 10/909,343

4
battery having the claimed outside diameter, the Examiner errs in finding
that the positive plate of Bando has a thickness of 0.95 mm or greater, i.e.,
from about 1.41 to 2.26 mm, citing column 10, lines 43-52, and column 10,
lines 60-62.
The error in the Examiner’s finding, as explained by Appellant, is that
the thicknesses cited by the Examiner for the 2-dimensional substrate and 3-
dimensional substrates used to form the positive electrode are thicknesses
before the substrates are press-rolled. As set forth by Appellant, the
substrates of Bando are subjected to a roller press to form a positive
electrode having a thickness of no more than 0.7 mm. While the Examiner
cites Example 6 of Bando for the proposition that the reference discloses
other embodiments that do not include a roller press, Appellant accurately
notes that Bando’s Example 6 clearly describes that the “metallic porous
body was rolled to prepare a paste type positive electrode” (col. 36, ll. 9-11).
The Fukunaga and Endo references do not remedy the deficiency of
Bando discussed above.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejections.

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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl