Ex Parte Inda

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2016

11453919 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111453,919 06/16/2006 Y asushi Inda
38834 7590 08/11/2016
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT A VENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
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.
062678 7638
EXAMINER
FORREST, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2016 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y ASUSHI INDA
Appeal2015-002050
Application 11/453,919
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 16 and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed Jun. 16, 2006; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") mailed Jan. 2, 2014; Examiner's Answer ("Ans."); and
Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify Ohara Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002050
Application 11/453,919
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal regards a method for manufacturing a
lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte for use in lithium ion battery. Spec.
1. Sole independent claim 16 is illustrative and reproduced from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
16. A method for manufacturing a lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte
compnsmg:
preparing a slurry comprising lithium ion conductive glass or glass-
ceramic powder as a main component and comprising also at least an
organic binder and water used as a solvent,
forming the slurry to a greensheet,
isotropically pressing the greensheet so as to make the greensheet
dense, and
sintering the greensheet with variation in thickness of the greensheet
being within a range from+ 10% to -10% relative to mean value of
distribution of thickness of the greensheet,
wherein the solid electrolyte has porosity of 10 vol % or less, and the
solid electrolyte has thickness of 200µm or below wherein the glass or glass-
ceramic powder comprises lithium, silicon, phosphorus and titanium, and
average particle diameter of the glass or glass-ceramic powder is
20µm or below.
2
Appeal2015-002050
Application 11/453,919
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintained the following grounds of rejection: 3
I. Claims 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Inda,4 Schierle-Amdt,5 Kaga, 6 Aono,7 and Takizawa.8
II. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Inda, Schierle-Amdt, Kaga, Aono, Takizawa, and Bezama.9
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues that the Examiner's obviousness determination
underlying Rejections I and II is premised on an incorrect interpretation of
the disclosure of Schierle-Amdt. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 3-6. We agree.
The Examiner found that Inda discloses coating a mixture of lithium
ion conductive glass or glass-ceramic powder, binder and solvent onto an
electrode, and removing the solvent by drying to yield a solid electrolyte
coating with a thickness less than 30 µm. Ans. 2 (citing Inda~ 32). The
Examiner acknowledged that Inda fails to teach isotropically pressing, and
then sintering, the powder/solvent mixture. 10 For that aspect, the Examiner
3 Ans. 2-7; Final Act. 2-7.
4 EP 1 424 743 Al, published Jun. 2, 2004 ("Inda").
5 US 2004/0111874 Al, published Jun. 17, 2004 ("Schierle-Amdt").
6 US 5,292,693, issued Mar. 8, 1994 ("Kaga").
7 Aono, H., Ionic Conductivity of Solid Electrolytes Based on Lithium
Titanium Phosphate, 137 (4) J. Electrochem. Soc., 1023-7 (1990) ("Aono").
8 US 6,797,436 B2, issued Sep. 28, 2004 ("Takizawa").
9 US 5,882,455, issued Mar. 16, 1999 ("Bezama").
10 Appellant's Specification defines "greensheet" as a mixed slurry of the
recited powder, binder and solvent, formed as a thin sheet, before sintering.
Spec. 4. Appellants indicate that the solvent and binder components remain
in the greensheet until after drying and sintering. App. Br. 6. Claim 16
3
Appeal2015-002050
Application 11/453,919
relied on Schierle-Amdt. Particularly, the Examiner found that Schierle-
Amdt teaches comminuting a powder of lithium ion conductive material in a
suspension of water, and "shaping the powder in the suspension medium to a
desired shape by cold isostatic pressing .... " Ans. 3 (citing Inda iJ 23)
(emphasis added). Appellant argues that "the cold isostatic pressing [in
Schierle-Amdt] is applied to the powder (not the greensheet)." App. Br. 7.
Looking to Schierle-Amdt, it is disclosed that, to provide the
disclosed ion conductor in a desired shape, "the powder is pressed in a
mold." Schierle-Amdt iJ 23 (emphasis added). If the powder to be used
contains coarse particles, a comminution process is described which includes
milling the particles in a suspension medium. Id. at iJ 22. In that case,
Schierle-Amdt specifies that the suspension medium necessarily is removed
after milling and before isostatic pressing. Id. at iJ 23 (stating that the
powder is subjected to shaping, e.g. by isostatic pressing, "if necessary after
milling and if necessary after removal of suspension medium"). Consistent
with that disclosure, Schierle-Amdt's Examples 1 and 2 involve milling
particles in an isopropanol suspension medium followed by removal of the
isopropanol before pressing the remaining powder into a crucible shape.
Schierle-Amdt, iii! 26, 27. In light of these disclosures in Schierle-Amdt, we
agree that the Examiner's finding that Schierle-Amdt teaches isostatic
pressing of a powder in the suspension medium is not supported by that
reference.
recites, "isotropically pressing the greensheet ... and sintering the
greensheet."
4
Appeal2015-002050
Application 11/453,919
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner's obviousness
determination was premised on an erroneous factual finding as to the
disclosure of Schierle-Amdt. For that reason, we do not sustain either
Rejection I or Rejection II.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16 and 18-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5