Envia Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2022

2021001196 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2022)

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. 15/425,696 02/06/2017 Haixia Deng 5024.27US02 2952 62274 7590 01/24/2022 CHRISTENSEN, FONDER, DARDI & HERBERT PLLC 11322 86th Ave. N. Maple Grove, MN 55369 EXAMINER VAN OUDENAREN, MATTHEW W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2022 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): docket@cfd-ip.com patents@cfd-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HAIXIA DENG, YONGBONG HAN, CHARAN MASARAPU, YOGESH KUMAR ANGUCHAMY, HERMAN A. LOPEZ, and SUJEET KUMAR ____________ Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, LILAN REN, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies Zenlabs Energy, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed July 17, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), 3. 2 Non-Final Office Action entered December 18, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), 1. Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant claims a lithium ion battery. Appeal Br. 4-5. Claims 1 and 12, the only pending independent claims, illustrate the subject matter on appeal, and read as follows: 1. A lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a lithium metal oxide, a negative electrode comprising a particulate active material comprising silicon oxide, and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the negative electrode further comprises a polymer binder and a distinct electrically conductive additive and has a thickness on a current collector of at least about 25 microns, and wherein after 50 charge-discharge cycles between 4.5V and l.0V, the battery exhibits at least about 750 mAh/g discharge capacity from negative electrode active material and at least about 150 mAh/g discharge capacity from positive electrode active material at a rate of C/3 and exhibits a discharge capacity decrease by no more than about 10 percent, wherein the silicon oxide is described by the formula SiOx, 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1.5, and wherein the negative electrode comprises from about 2 weight percent to about 15 weight percent additional electrical conductor and at least about 80 weight percent active material. 12. A lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a lithium metal oxide, a negative electrode, a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte comprising lithium ions and from about 5 volume percent to about 35 volume percent of a halogenated carbonate, wherein the negative electrode comprises particulate active material comprising silicon oxide in a polymer binder comprising polyimide and Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 3 wherein the battery upon cycling has a discharge capacity decrease by no more than about 10 percent at the 50th discharge cycle relative to the 7th discharge cycle when discharged at a rate of C/3 from the 7th discharge to the 50th discharge, wherein the silicon oxide is described by the formula SiOx, 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1.5. Appeal Br. 32-34 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis and spacing added). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s Answer entered October 9, 2020 (“Ans.”) (Compare Non-Final Act. 7-35, with Ans. 3): I. claims 1, 3, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi3 in view of Miyagi,4 Plee,5 and Buckley;6 and II. claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Miyagi, Plee, Buckley, and Ishida;7 III. claims 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Miyagi, Plee, Buckley, and Kono;8 3 Nakanishi et al., US 2009/0239151 A1, published September 24, 2009. 4 Miyagi et al., US 2010/0015514 A1, published January 21, 2010. 5 Plee et al., WO 2010/026332 A1, published March 11, 2010. On the record before us, the Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s reliance on Plee et al., US 2011/0163274 A1, published July 7, 2011 as “the English equivalent” of WO 2010/026332 A1. Compare Non-Final Act. 7, with Appeal Br. 8-31. Citations to “Plee” in this decision, therefore, refer to US 2011/0163274 A1. 6 Buckley et al., US 2009/0263707 A1, published October 22, 2009. 7 Ishida et al., US 2008/0160409 A1, published July 3, 2008. 8 Kono et al., US 2011/0171529 A1, published July 14, 2011. Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 4 IV. claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Miyagi, Plee, Buckley, and Watanabe;9 V. claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Miyagi, Plee, Buckley, and Cui;10 VI. claims 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Im11 and Buckley; VII. claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Im, Buckley, and Plee; VIII. claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Im, Buckley, and Kono; IX. claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Im, Buckley, and Cui; X. claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Im, Buckley, Kono, and Cui; and XI. claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Im, Buckley, and Cui. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of the Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons set forth in the Non-Final Action, the Answer, and below. We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence the Appellant provides for each issue the Appellant 9 Watanabe, US 2010/0009261 A1, published January 14, 2010. 10 Cui et al., US 2011/0111304 A1, published May 12, 2011. 11 Im et al., US 2005/0031963 A1, published February 10, 2005. Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 5 identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); 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) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). Rejection I We turn first to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Miyagi, Plee, and Buckley. To address this rejection, the Appellant presents arguments directed to independent claim 1 only, to which we accordingly limit our discussion. Appeal Br. 13-21; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Nakanishi discloses a lithium ion secondary battery that includes a positive electrode material comprising lithium oxide, a negative electrode material comprising silicon oxide particles, where the silicon oxide is represented by the formula SiOx in which 1.0 ≤ x < 1.6, and a separator between the positive and negative electrodes. Nakanishi ¶¶ 58, 59, 105, 106, 109, 110. Nakanishi discloses that the negative electrode “active material is present in an amount of 50 to 98%, more preferably 75 to 96%, and even more preferably 80 to 96% by weight based on the negative electrode material,” which overlaps the respective range recited in claim 1, rendering the recited range prima facie obvious. Nakanishi ¶ 90; In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2003)(“In cases involving overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.”). Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 6 Nakanishi discloses that the negative electrode material also comprises a polyimide resin binder material, and may further include an electrically conductive agent or material, such as graphite or carbon fibers, preferably in an amount of 1 to 10% by weight, which overlaps the respective range of “additional electrical conductor” recited in claim 1, rendering the recited range prima facie obvious. Nakanishi ¶¶ 91, 99, 100; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30. Nakanishi discloses forming the negative electrode by applying the negative electrode material to a current collector. Nakanishi ¶ 103. But, as the Examiner finds, Nakanishi does not disclose the thickness of the negative electrode material applied to the current collector. Non-Final Act. 9. Miyagi, however, discloses a lithium secondary battery including a non-aqueous electrolyte and a negative electrode comprising an active material that includes particulate silicon oxide coated on a current collector at a thickness of 15 to 150 microns, which overlaps the respective range recited in claim 1, rendering the recited range prima facie obvious. Miyagi ¶¶ 1, 256, 259, 303, 980-981; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30. Miyagi further discloses that when the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer is greater than 150 microns, the nonaqueous electrolyte is less able to infiltrate into the interface of the current collector, adversely affecting the battery’s high-current-density charge/discharge characteristics, but when the thickness is less than 15 microns, the proportion by volume of the current collector to the negative-electrode active material increases, resulting in a decrease in the battery capacity. Miyagi ¶¶ 303, 980-981. Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 7 In view of these disclosures in Miyagi, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form Nakanishi’s negative electrode by coating the active material onto a current collector at a thickness as disclosed Miyagi “to minimize decreases to high current density charge/discharge characteristics (due to electrolyte infiltration issues at the current collector interface) and also minimize decreases to battery capacity (due to increases in the current collector volume proportion as compared to that of the negative electrode), as taught by Miyagi.” Non-Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds that “Nakanishi, as modified by Miyagi, does not explicitly teach that the negative electrode further comprises a distinct electrically conductive additive.” Non-Final Act. 10. Plee, however, discloses a secondary lithium ion battery having a negative electrode comprising a composite material that includes a silicon active element, a conductive additive formed of a mixture of carbon nanofibers and carbon nanotubes, and a polymer binder. Plee ¶¶ 58, 61-65, 88-90. Plee discloses that the conductive additive mixture may contain graphite as an additional conductive additive. Plee ¶ 59. Plee discloses that including the conductive additive mixture in the negative electrode composite material imparts “excellent cycling stability” to the negative electrode, resulting in “capacity retention with cycling.” Plee ¶ 82. In view of these disclosures in Plee, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a mixture of carbon nanotubes and carbon fibers as additional conductive additives in Nakanishi’s negative electrode material to “boost the electrical conductivity,” and “enhance the cycling stability and capacity retention” of a Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 8 negative electrode formed from the material, by coating the material onto a current collector at a thickness as disclosed in Miyagi. Non-Final Act. 10.12 The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is based on improper hindsight because it “uses Appellant’s claimed invention as a template to construct a battery,” and “the Examiner has failed to explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would evaluate the disparate teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed battery design.” Appeal Br. 17-18. The Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s assertions of the existence of a battery somehow based on vague elements from 4 references assembled together directly involves hindsight and directly neglects the requirements of KSR [Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)] that a reason is identified for assembling such elements.” Appeal Br. 19. Contrary to the Appellant’s arguments, however, as discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is based on explicit disclosures of Nakanishi, Miyagi, and Plee, and what those disclosures reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner articulates a thorough, reasoned explanation having rational underpinning for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relied-upon disclosures of Nakanishi, Miyagi, and Plee to arrive at a lithium ion battery having all the structural and compositional features recited in claim 1, as set forth above. The Examiner’s rejection, therefore, is not based on hindsight, as the 12 Although the Examiner further relies on Buckley in rejecting claim 1, the combined disclosures of Nakanishi, Miyagi, and Plee would have suggested a lithium ion battery having all the structural and compositional features recited in claim 1, as set forth above. We, therefore, do not address Buckley for disposition of this appeal, and limit our discussion of the Appellant’s arguments to those directed to Nakanishi, Miyagi, and Plee. Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 9 Appellant argues; consequently, the Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rationale for the proposed modifications of Nakanishi’s battery based on the relied-upon disclosures of Miyagi and Plee. The Appellant argues that Miyagi discloses eight classes of negative electrode active materials, but only particulate (powder) forms of negative electrode material seven “seem[] relevant.” Appeal Br. 15. The Appellant argues that although Miyagi discloses applying such materials to current collectors “at thicknesses of up to 150 microns[,] . . . Miyagi does not exemplify any of these materials.” Id. The Appellant argues that “viewing the references as a whole, with respect to electrode design, Nakanishi and Plee are significantly more relevant [than Miyagi] with respect to Appellant’s claimed invention since they clearly cover similar types of active materials and exemplify powder based electrodes.” Id. The Appellant argues that when viewed “as a whole, the combined teachings of Nakanishi, Miyagi and Plee do not provide a reasonable expectation of success with respect to successfully cycling the claimed negative electrode with a thickness of at least about 25 microns.” Id. The Appellant’s arguments again do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, for reasons that follow. As discussed above, although Nakanishi discloses forming a negative electrode by applying Nakanishi’s negative electrode material to a current collector, Nakanishi does not disclose the thickness of the negative electrode active material applied to the current collector. Nakanishi thus leaves it to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable thickness. As also discussed above, Miyagi discloses that the thickness of a negative electrode Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 10 active material layer applied to a current collector to form a negative electrode affects the charge/discharge characteristics and capacity of a battery including the resulting electrode, indicating that the negative electrode active material thickness is a result-effective variable. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”). One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to produce a negative electrode by applying a negative electrode active material to a current collector as disclosed in Nakanishi, therefore, reasonably would have arrived at a suitable thickness to achieve desired charge/discharge characteristics and battery capacity, such as a thickness as recited in claim 1, through nothing more than routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”). Furthermore, although Miyagi discloses eight classes of negative electrode materials as the Appellant argues, Miyagi nonetheless explicitly discloses a negative electrode active material that includes particulate silicon oxide (material 7), and Miyagi describes the suitability of using this material to produce a negative electrode by applying the material onto a current collector at a thickness of preferably 15 to 150 microns, which overlaps the respective range recited in claim 1. Miyagi need not explicitly exemplify forming a negative electrode by coating such an active material onto a Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 11 current collector at a thickness within the disclosed range to have suggested the suitability of using such a coating thickness when applying Nakanishi’s negative electrode active material including particulate silicon oxide to a current collector to form Nakanishi’s negative electrode. In re Francalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982) (“It is axiomatic that a reference must be considered in its entirety, and it is well established that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to specific working examples contained therein.”) (citing In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, (CCPA 1976)); Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the ’813 [prior art] patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. This is especially true because the claimed composition is used for the identical purpose.”). Moreover, the relative degree of the relevance of each of Nakanishi, Miyagi, and Plee to the Appellant’s “claimed invention” does not negate or detract from the explicit disclosures of each reference discussed above, which, considered in combination, would have suggested a battery having all the structural and compositional features recited in claim 1. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.”). The Examiner’s rejection is not based on isolated teachings of individual references as the Appellant argues, but, rather, what a combination of the references’ disclosures as a whole reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”); In re Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 12 Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected that modifying Nakanishi’s negative electrode material to include a mixture of carbon nanotubes and carbon fibers as additional conductive additives as disclosed in Plee, and applying the material to a current collector at a thickness of 15 to 150 microns as disclosed in Miyagi, would yield a negative electrode that would cycle successfully, in view of Miyagi’s disclosure of the suitability of such a coating thickness for negative electrode material including particulate silicon oxide, and Plee’s disclosure that such additives impart excellent cycling stability to a negative electrode, resulting in capacity retention with cycling. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”) (emphasis omitted, citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). The Appellant argues that the cycling stability recited in claim 1 does not necessarily follow or naturally result from “the teachings of the cited references in combination.” Appeal Br. 17-18. The Appellant argues that “Appellant’s Examples are replete with evidence that such batteries do not NECESSARILY exhibit the claimed cycling stability.” Appeal Br. 19. The Appellant argues that Table 3 of Nakanishi provides “another example of such evidence” because when “[u]sing a low voltage charge of 4.2V and a positive electrode active material that stably cycles at such low voltages (LiCoO2), Nakanishi did not obtain the 50-cycle stability as claimed in claim 1; rather, Nakanishi shows 14-19% loss of discharge capacity over 50 Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 13 cycles.” Appeal Br. 19-20. As discussed above, however, the combined disclosures of Nakanishi, Miyagi, and Plee would have suggested a lithium ion battery having all the structural and compositional features recited in claim 1. A reasonable factual basis therefore exists for determining that the lithium ion battery suggested by the combined disclosures of these references would exhibit a discharge capacity from each of the negative and positive electrodes after 50 charge-discharge cycles, and a discharge capacity decrease, as recited in claim 1. The burden, therefore, shifts to the Appellant to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted) (“Where . . . the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.”); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.). On the record before us, the Appellant does not meet this burden. Although (as discussed above) the Appellant argues that the experimental examples set forth in the Appellant’s Specification provide evidence demonstrating that Nakanishi’s lithium ion battery modified as proposed by the Examiner in view of the relied upon disclosures of Miyagi and Plee Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 14 would not necessarily exhibit a cycling stability as recited in claim 1, we find no such showing in the Specification’s experimental examples and accompanying Figures. Significantly, the Appellant does not elaborate on the Appellant’s argument by identifying any particular experimental example or Figure that provides such a showing. The Appellant’s conclusory assertions do not constitute the requisite evidence necessary to meet the Appellant’s burden of showing that Nakanishi’s lithium ion battery modified as proposed would not exhibit a cycling stability as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, although the Appellant argues that Table 3 of Nakanishi provides evidence demonstrating that the cycling stability recited in claim 1 does not necessarily follow or naturally result from “the teachings of the cited references in combination,” Nakanishi’s Table 3 shows the discharge capacity retention after 50 cycles of two batteries (“Example 4” and “Comparative Example 1”) that each have an anode comprised of 90% by weight silicon oxide particles and 10% by weight polyimide resin. Nakanishi ¶ 128 (Table 2), ¶ 132 (Table 3). Neither battery includes a distinct electrically conductive additive or an additional electrical conductor as recited in claim 1. The results set forth in Nakanishi’s Table 3, therefore, do not demonstrate that the lithium ion battery suggested by the combined disclosures of the Nakanishi, Miyagi, and Plee-having all the structural and compositional features recited in claim 1-would not exhibit a discharge capacity from each of the negative and positive electrodes after 50 charge- discharge cycles, and a discharge capacity decrease, as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 15 The Appellant’s arguments, therefore, do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We accordingly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rejections II-V We turn now to the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Miyagi, Plee, Buckley, and additional prior art references. To address these rejections, the Appellant relies on the arguments the Appellant presents for claim 1 (discussed above), and argues that the additional prior art references applied in these rejections do not cure the deficiencies of Nakanishi, Miyagi, Plee, and Buckley. Appeal Br. 22-24. Because the Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, the Appellant’s arguments also do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which we accordingly sustain. Rejection VI We turn now to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Im and Buckley. To address this rejection, the Appellant presents arguments directed to independent claim 12 only, and in so doing, repeats numerous arguments the Appellant presents for claim 1 (discussed above). Compare Appeal Br. 13- 21, with Appeal Br. 24-28. For the same reasons that the Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (discussed above), the Appellant’s arguments also do not identify Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 16 reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12. We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, and claims 13, 15, 16, and 20, which each depend from claim 12, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rejections VII-XI Finally, we turn to the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Im, Buckley, and additional prior art references. To address these rejections, the Appellant relies on the arguments the Appellant presents for claim 12 (discussed above), and argues that the additional prior art references applied in these rejections not cure the deficiencies of Nakanishi, Im, and Buckley. Appeal Br. 28-31. Because the Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 for the reasons discussed above, the Appellant’s arguments also do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which we accordingly sustain. Appeal 2021-001196 Application 15/425,696 17 DECISION SUMMARY Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 7, 10, 11 103 Nakanishi, Miyagi, Plee, Buckley 1, 3, 7, 10, 11 4 103 Nakanishi, Miyagi, Plee, Buckley, Ishida 4 5, 8 103 Nakanishi, Miyagi, Plee, Buckley, Kono 5, 8 6 103 Nakanishi, Miyagi, Plee, Buckley, Watanabe 6 9 103 Nakanishi, Miyagi, Plee, Buckley, Cui 9 12, 13, 15, 16, 20 103 Nakanishi, Im, Buckley 12, 13, 15, 16, 20 17 103 Nakanishi, Im, Buckley, Plee 17 18 103 Nakanishi, Im, Buckley, Kono 18 19 103 Nakanishi, Im, Buckley, Cui 19 21 103 Nakanishi, Im, Buckley, Kono, Cui 21 22 103 Nakanishi, Im, Buckley, Cui 22 Overall Outcome 1, 3-13, 15-22 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