Ex Parte Tyler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 22, 201813754410 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/754,410 75576 7590 Johnson Controls, Inc. c/o Fletcher Yoder PC P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269 01/30/2013 10/22/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthew R. Tyler 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. JOCP:0055 8090 EXAMINER SHEIKH, HAROON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1724 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/22/2018 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHEW R. TYLER and JASON D. FUHR Appeal2018-001400 Application 13/754,410 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, BRIAND. RANGE, and JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, and 15-23. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1 Appellant is the applicant, Johnson Controls Technology Company, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed July 10, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2. Appeal2018-001400 Application 13/754,410 1. A battery, comprising: a housing having a top portion; a lithium-ion cell element disposed within the housing; and a top cover disposed on the top portion of the housing, the top cover comprising a metallic foil, a first layer of plastic disposed on a first side of the metallic foil, and a second layer of plastic disposed on a second side of the metallic foil opposite to the first side; wherein the top cover comprises a vent disposed in a vent area of the top cover, wherein the vent is configured to open in response to pressure within the housing exceeding a threshold, wherein the metallic foil extends through an entirety of the vent area of the top cover, and wherein the first layer of plastic, the second layer of plastic, or both the first and second layers of plastic in the vent area of the top cover include a first thickness that is less than a second thickness of the first layer of plastic, the second layer of plastic, or both the first and second layers of plastic, respectively, in a remaining area of the top cover outside of the vent area. App. Br. 23 (Claims Appendix) ( emphasis and indentations added). Like claim 1, independent claims 10 and 1 7 also recite a battery comprising a top cover comprising a vent disposed in a vent area, a metallic foil extending through an entirety of the vent area, a first layer of plastic disposed on a first side of the metallic foil, and a second layer of plastic disposed on a second side of the metallic foil opposite to the first side. The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office Action entered February 8, 2017 ("Final Act."), and maintains the rejections in the Examiner's Answer entered September 21, 2017 ("Ans."): 2 Appeal2018-001400 Application 13/754,410 I. Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Han2 in view ofHuang3 and Byun4; II. Claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Han in view of Huang, Byun, and Kodama 5; III. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Han in view of Huang, Byun, and Kim6; IV. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Han in view of Huang, Byun 7, and Kodama; V. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Han in view of Huang, Byun, and Kim; and VI. Claims 17-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Han in view of Huang, Byun, and Kim. DISCUSSION Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of Appellant's contentions, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, and 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and below. The Examiner finds that Han discloses secondary battery 100 comprising plastic cap plate 131 including safety vent 132 disposed in a vent area of cap plate 131. Final Act. 3; Ans. 17. The Examiner finds that Han 2 Han (US 2012/0156532 Al, published June 21, 2012). 3 Huang (CN 1929185 A, published March 14, 2007). 4 Byun et al. (US 2011/0311863 Al, published December 22, 2011). 5 Kodama (JP 2002-008616 A, published January 11, 2002). 6 Kim (US 2009/0191450 Al, published July 30, 2009). 7 Although the Examiner omitted Byun from the heading for the rejection of claim 15 in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 10), the Examiner included Byun in the heading for this rejection in the Answer (Ans. 10). 3 Appeal2018-001400 Application 13/754,410 discloses that safety vent 13 2 is configured to open in response to pressure within the housing exceeding a threshold. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Han does not disclose that cap plate 131 comprises a metallic foil, a first layer of plastic disposed on a first side of the metallic foil, and a second layer of plastic disposed on a second side of the metallic foil opposite to the first side, and does not disclose that the metallic foil extends through an entirety of the vent area of cap plate 131. Id. The Examiner relies on Huang and Byun to address these features missing from Han's disclosures. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 15-17. The Examiner finds that Huang discloses a metal-coated plastic film composite case for a lithium ion battery that includes outer plastic film layer 11 disposed on a first side of metallic housing 12, and plastic film overcoat 10 disposed on a second side of metallic housing 12. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Huang discloses that the metal-coated plastic film composite not only provides strength and rigidity to support and protect the battery from external shocks and damage during production, transport, and use, but also prevents the battery positive and negative electrical core from physical short-circuit. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant's invention to modify Han's cap plate 131----except in the vent area-to include a metallic foil, a first layer of plastic disposed on the external side of the metallic foil, and a second layer of plastic disposed on the internal side of the metallic foil "in order to provide a metal-coated plastic film composite having better strength and rigidity to support and protect the battery from external shocks and damage in the production, transport and use, and prevent the battery positive 4 Appeal2018-001400 Application 13/754,410 and negative electrical core from physical short-circuit." Final Act. 4; Ans. 17. The Examiner finds that Byun discloses secondary battery 1000 comprising case 100 having cap plate 300 including safety vent 330 configured to prevent battery 1000 from exploding when the internal pressure of case 100 rises to a predetermined level or higher. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds that Byun discloses that cap plate 300 is formed of a metallic foil that extends through the entirety of the vent area of cap plate 300. Final Act. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant's invention to modify the vent area of Han's cap plate 131 (as modified by Huang) to include a metallic foil extending through the entirety of cap plate 131, including the vent area, as disclosed in Byun, "to prevent the battery from exploding when the internal pressure of the case rises to a predetermined level or higher." Final Act. 5; Ans. 17. The Examiner, however, does not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Han's battery in this manner. Han discloses secondary battery 100 comprising cap assembly 130 that includes plastic cap plate 131 and safety vent 132. ,r,r 28, 38, 40, and 41; Figs. 1-3. Han discloses that safety vent 132 is thinner than the other parts of cap plate 131, and explains that when the internal pressure of battery 100 increases to a predetermined level, safety vent 132 ruptures to release internal gas, preventing the battery from exploding. ,r 41. Similarly, Byun discloses secondary battery 1000 comprising case 100 and metal cap plate 300 that includes safety vent 330. 5 Appeal2018-001400 Application 13/754,410 ,r,r 33, 49; Figs. 1, 2. Byun discloses that safety vent 330 is thinner than the other areas of cap plate 300, and explains that safety vent 330 prevents secondary battery 1000 from exploding when the internal pressure of case 100 rises to a predetermined level or higher. ,r 51. In view of these disclosures in Byun, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Byun's safety vent 300, like Han's safety vent 132, prevents explosions by rupturing to release internal gas. In contrast, Huang discloses a large capacity lithium-ion battery having a housing formed of a composite material that includes plastic film overcoat 10, metallic housing 12, and outer plastic film layer 11. ,r,r 12, 63; Fig. 1. Huang discloses that this composite housing provides strength and rigidity to support and protect the battery from external shocks and damage during production, transport, and use. ,r 12. Huang discloses that the battery includes ball and spring-type safety valve 17 coupled to an opening in the composite three-layer housing, and explains that large lithium-ion batteries include such explosion-proof valves to release internal pressure. ,r 15; Fig. 1. Han and Byun thus both disclose preventing explosions in a secondary battery by forming a vent area of reduced thickness in the battery's cap plate that ruptures to release gas when the internal pressure increases. Huang discloses preventing explosions in a large lithium-ion battery by releasing internal pressure with a ball and spring valve coupled to a pre-formed opening in a three-layer composite housing. As discussed above, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a metallic foil in the vent area of Han's plastic cap plate 131 (modified by Huang) as disclosed in 6 Appeal2018-001400 Application 13/754,410 Byun to prevent the battery from exploding when the internal pressure increases. But the Examiner does not provide sound technical reasoning that explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have added a metal foil to Han's plastic cap plate 131 between two layers of plastic to prevent Han's battery from exploding, when Han discloses that plastic safety vent 132 already prevents explosions by rupturing when the internal pressure of the battery increases. As discussed above, Huang discloses that the three-layer housing described in the reference is strong and rigid and protects the battery from damage during production, transport, and use. As Appellant points out (App. Br. 14), adding a metal layer as disclosed in Byun to the vent area of Han's plastic cap plate 131 would strengthen the vent area, and in so doing, may interfere with, or even prevent, rupture of safety vent 132 when the internal pressure of the battery increases. The Examiner responds by asserting that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that plastic safety vent 132 disclosed in Han and metal safety vent 330 disclosed in Byun are art-recognized equivalents, "such that combining these equivalents for the same purpose would have been obvious." Ans. 15. In making this assertion, the Examiner appears to rely on In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980), which held that it would have been obvious to combine two chemical compositions, each of which was taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, to form a third composition used for the very same purpose. But the holding of Kerkhoven is not directed to the obviousness of combining two components of a mechanical or electrical apparatus, and the Examiner's apparent reliance on Kerkhoven is therefore misplaced. Even if Han's plastic safety vent 132 and Byun's metal safety vent 7 Appeal2018-001400 Application 13/754,410 330 were recognized in the art as equivalents used for the same purpose as the Examiner asserts, one of ordinary skill in the art may have found it obvious to substitute-rather than combine-these elements in a secondary battery. The Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or sound technical reasoning to establish a plausible reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine Han's plastic safety vent 132 and Byun's metal safety vent 330. Therefore, the Examiner does not establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the relied-upon disclosures in Han, Byun, and Huang to produce a vent disposed in a vent area of a battery top cover that includes a metallic foil extending through an entirety of the vent area, a first layer of plastic disposed on a first side of the metallic foil, and a second layer of plastic disposed on a second side of the metallic foil opposite to the first side, as recited in claims 1, 10, and 17. It follows that the Examiner does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, and 15-23 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability") We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, and 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, and 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation