Ex Parte RADHAKRISHNAN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

14296824 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/296,824 06/05/2014
108320 7590 04/02/2019
The Aerospace Corporation
Attn: C.A. Mulchinski
Mail Stop Ml/040
2310 E. El Segundo Boulevard
El Segundo, CA 90245
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gouri RADHAKRISHNAN
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
F9959-00014 (D-760) 7246
EXAMINER
THOMAS, BRENT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
carole. a.mulchinski@aero.org
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GOURI RADHAKRISHNAN and MICHAEL V. QUINZI0 1
Appeal2018-004409
Application 14/296,824
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Aerospace Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004409
Application 14/296,824
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A battery comprising:
a conductive base substrate comprising a non-metal electrically
conductive material; and
a coating material applied onto at least a portion of said base
substrate, wherein
said coating material comprises at least one active material that
is directly applied onto at least a portion of said base substrate, and
said at least one active material penetrates into said conductive
base substrate.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Kelley US 2009/0053601 Al Feb. 26,
2009
Honda et al. US 2009/0070988 Al Mar. 19,
2009
Chen et al. US 2013/0224603 Al Aug. 29,
2013
Li et al. US 2014/0212735 Al July 31,
2014
2
Appeal2018-004409
Application 14/296,824
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(l)
as being anticipated by Chen et al. (hereafter "Chen"). Final Rej. 2.
2. Claims 4, 10-12, and 14--17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 18-
22 above, and further in view of Honda et al (hereafter "Honda").
Final Rej. 5.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Chen as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 18-22 above, and further in
view of Kelley. Final Rej. 7.
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable
over Chen and Honda as applied to claims 4, 10-12, and 14--17
above, and further in view of Kelley. Final Rej. 7.
5. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Chen as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 18-22 above, and
further in view of Li et al. (hereafter "Li"). Final Rej. 8.
ANALYSIS
Appellants rely on arguments as to the patentability of claim 1 for all
of the other claims. 2 Appeal Br. 15-19. With no separate arguments
2 Appellants rely on the same reasoning when addressing independent claims
10 and 18. Appeal Br. 12-15.
3
Appeal2018-004409
Application 14/296,824
proffered, all claims will stand or fall together with independent claim 1,
which we select as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). As
such, our determinations with regard to Rejection 1 is dispositive for
Rejections 2-5.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t
has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer.
We incorporate the Examiner's response to argument made on pages
9-11 of the Answer, and are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments in
view of the Examiner's stated position therein. Appellants have not refuted
the Examiner's position that the present application, like Chen, uses
graphene foam as a substrate and thin film coating methods. Ans. 1 O; Spec ,r
25, claim 20; Chen ,r,r 53, 54, 64.
We add that the Examiner's point that no degree of penetration is
claimed by Appellant in order to distinguish from Chen, is well-taken. Ans.
10-11. Furthermore, Chen discloses the electrode is porous and comprises
active materials that are similar to those required by the present invention.
Consequently, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error
because they are not grounded on limitations that appear in the claims. In re
4
Appeal2018-004409
Application 14/296,824
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1368-1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCP A 1982).
We thus affirm the rejections.
DECISION
Each rejection 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5