Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2021

2020003672 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2021)

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.
15/043,109 02/12/2016 Qingcheng Zeng 8888-56501 2870
81310 7590 09/24/2021
Kowert Hood Munyon Rankin & Goetzel (Apple)
1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy
Building 2, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
EXAMINER
JELSMA, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1722
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2021 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QINGCHENG ZENG, RICHARD M. MANK, JIE GUAN,
SHOUWEI HAO, and BOOKEUN OH
Appeal 2020-003672
Application 15/043,109
Technology Center 3600
BEFORE BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, BRIAN D. RANGE,
DEBRA L. DENNETT, 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 1, 3–9, 11–13, 15–17, and 20–22,
which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 10, 14,
18, 19, and 23 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 One Apple.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003672
Application 15/043,109

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A battery, comprising:
a first electrode;
a second electrode;
a porous layer comprising anodic aluminum oxide (AAO),
wherein the porous layer has a plurality of pores, each pore of
the porous layer having a corresponding pore diameter that is at
least approximately 10 nanometers and does not exceed
approximately 200 nanometers, wherein the porous layer is
positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the porous layer resists dendrite growth from the first
electrode through the porous layer to the second electrode and
permits ion transport through the porous layer from the first
electrode to the second electrode; and a solid electrolyte layer
deposited, laminated, or coated onto a side of the porous layer.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Takeuchi et al. (“Takeuchi”) US 6,096,456 Aug. 1, 2000
Ying et al. (“Ying”) US 6,277,514 B1 Aug. 21, 2001
Ramasubramanian et al.
(“Ramasubramanian”)
US 8, 216,712 B1 July 10, 2021
Halmo et al. (“Halmo”) US 2014/0079980
A1
Mar. 20, 2014

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1, 3, 5, 7–9, 11, 13, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ying in view of Ramasubramanian.
Appeal 2020-003672
Application 15/043,109

3
2. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ying as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in
view of Halmo.
3. Claims 6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ying as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in
view of Takeuchi.
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ying in view of Ramasubramanian as applied to claim 17 above, and
further in view of Halmo.
5. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ying in view of Ramasubramanian as applied to claim 17 above, and
further in view of Takeuchi.
OPINION
Appellant does not present any substantively distinct arguments
regarding patentability of any particular claim or claim grouping. Therefore,
consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we limit our
discussion to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal stand or fall together
with claim 1.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, 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
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
Appeal 2020-003672
Application 15/043,109

4
reversible error in the appealed rejections for the reasons stated by the
Examiner in the record. We add the following for emphasis only.

Rejection 1
We refer to the Examiner’s rejection set forth on pages 4–9 of the
Answer and adopt the findings and statements therein as our own.
Beginning on page 6 of the Appeal Brief (and reiterated on pages 2–4
of the Reply Brief), Appellant argues that Ying in view of
Ramasubramanian does not suggest that each [emphasis added] pore of the
porous layer has a pore diameter “that is at least approximately 10
nanometers and does not exceed approximately 200 nanometers” as recited
in claim 1 for the reasons stated therein. We are unpersuaded by this line of
argument for the reasons provided by the Examiner on pages 13–16 of the
Answer. We agree with the Examiner that Ying reasonably suggests the
claimed pore size range when achieving the disclosed average pore diameter
of Ying for the reasons explained by the Examiner on pages 14-15 of the
Answer. Where there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed
invention falls within that range, there is a presumption of obviousness. See
In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 275 (CCPA 1980) (where ranges overlap, a
prima facie case of obviousness is made out); see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d
1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a prima facie case of obviousness typically
exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges
disclosed in the prior art); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (same).
Beginning on page 8 of the Appeal Brief (and reiterated on pages 5–8
of the Reply Brief), Appellant argues that the combination of Ying in view
Appeal 2020-003672
Application 15/043,109

5
of Ramasubramanian does not suggest a porous layer comprising anodic
aluminum oxide with pores in the diameter range recited in claim 1. We are
unpersuaded by this line of argument for the reasons provided by the
Examiner on pages 16–20 of the Answer. For those reasons, we agree with
the Examiner that the proposed modification is sufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness for the reasons stated therein.
Lastly, Appellant argues, beginning on page 9 of the Appeal Brief
(and reiterated on pages 8–9 of the Reply Brief) that the combination of
Ying in view of Ramasubramanian does not suggest a solid electrolyte
deposited, laminated, or coated onto a side of the porous layer as claimed.
We are unpersuaded by this line of argument for the reasons provided by the
Examiner on pages 20–22 of the Answer. As stated by the Examiner, claim
1 recites a solid electrolyte layer, not that the solid electrolyte layer is the
only electrolyte layer in the battery. The Examiner finds that, in the battery
of Ying, a separate electrolyte is used and the protective layer of Ying is
merely a solid electrolyte layer (in the sense that it is made of a lithium ion
conductor and therefore is taken to be a solid electrolyte material). The
Examiner further notes that Appellant’s Specification similarly teaches the
use of a liquid electrolyte within the porous layer 610 in conjunction with
the electrolyte layer 612 ( ¶¶ 77–78 of the Specification). The Examiner
states that, therefore, the interpretation of Ying as including both the
protective layer as the solid electrolyte layer and a separate liquid electrolyte
layer formed in the porous layer is reasonable even when compared to
Appellant’s Specification. We agree.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1. For similar reasons, we
also affirm Rejections 2–5.
Appeal 2020-003672
Application 15/043,109

6
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 7–9,
11, 13, 15–
17
103 Ying,
Ramasubramanian
1, 3, 5, 7–9,
11, 13, 15–
17

4, 12 103 Halmo 4, 12
6, 22 103 Takeuchi 6, 22
20 103 Ying,
Ramasubramanian,
Halmo
20
21 103 Ying,
Ramasubramanian,
Takeuchi
21
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9, 11–
13, 15–17,
20–22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED