Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13100273 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

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.
13/100,273 05/03/2011 Bong-Chull Kim 65619/S744 2554
23363 7590 04/28/2017
T ewis; Rnra Rnthcrerher Phrisitie T T P
EXAMINER
PO BOX 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
MOHADDES, LAD AN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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):
pto@lrrc.com
pair_cph @ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BONG-CHULL KIM, CHEOL-HEE HWANG,
DONG-YUNG KIM, SE-HO PARK, and HYUN-JUN CHOI
Appeal 2016-003563
Application 13/100,273
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and JANE E. INGLESE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-3, 8-14, 18-20, and 24-28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed February 23,
2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 17, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed December 21, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed February 19, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003563
Application 13/100,273
The claims are directed to a negative active material for a
rechargeable lithium battery and a rechargeable lithium battery including the
same. Spec. ^ 2. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claims on appeal.
1. A negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery,
comprising a carbon-nanoparticle composite comprising:
a crystalline carbon material having pores; and
amorphous conductive nanoparticles comprising silicon
nanoparticles having a full width at half maximum at a (111)
plane of about 0.35° to about 0.5° as measured by X-ray
diffraction, wherein at least some of the amorphous
conductive nanoparticles are inside the pores of the
crystalline carbon material, or both inside the pores and on
the surface of the crystalline carbon material, the amorphous
conductive nanoparticles being present in an amount of about
5 to about 25 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of
the crystalline carbon material, and having an average particle
diameter of about 50 nm to about 200 nm.
App. Br. 11. Independent claim 18 is directed to a rechargeable lithium
battery comprising the same negative active material as recited in claim 1.
Id. at 13.
REJECTIONS OF APPEAL
1. Claims 1, 2, 8-14, 18, 19, and 24-28 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aramata et al.
(US 2003/0215711 Al, published November 20, 2003) (hereinafter
“Aramata”) as evidenced by Kawakami et al. (US 2006/0127773
Al, published June 15, 2006) (hereinafter “Kawakami”); and
2. Claims 3 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Aramata as evidenced by Kawakami in view
2
Appeal 2016-003563
Application 13/100,273
of Kim et al. (US 2009/0269669 Al, published October 29, 2009)
(hereinafter “Kim”).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Aramata discloses, inter alia, a negative
electrode active material for lithium ion secondary cells comprising
amorphous conductive silicon nanoparticles with a crystallite size of 2 nm to
20 nm as determined by the Scherrer equation (L = K*k / Pcos 0) based on
the spread of the diffraction peak attributable to Si(l 11). Final Act. 3 (citing
Aramata ^ 27); Ans. 2. Using Scherrer’s equation, and assuming K has a
value of 1 and a wavelength of 0.154 nm, the Examiner calculates that the
full width at half maximum for Aramata’s crystallite size of 2 nm would be
0.05°, and the full width at half maximum for Aramata’s crystallite size of
20 nm would be 0.5°. Ans. 5; Final Act. 5. Thus, the Examiner determines
that Aramata’s silicon nanoparticles would necessarily possess a full width
at half maximum at a (111) plane that overlaps with the range recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that although it was known in the art to calculate
crystallite size by x-ray diffraction using Scherrer’s equation, contrary the
Examiner’s assumption, there is no evidence of record, nor was it known in
the art, to use Scherrer’s equation to back calculate any variable of the
equation based on the crystallite size, such as full width at half maximum.
App. Br. 5-6. Additionally, Appellants argue that even assuming one of
ordinary skill in the art would have attempted to use Scherrer’s equation in
the manner suggested by the Examiner, Aramata does not provide enough
3
Appeal 2016-003563
Application 13/100,273
information, e.g., the value for K, or the diffraction and/or instrument
profiles, necessary to calculate the full width at half maximum. Id. at 6-7.
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive of reversible error. On the
record before us, the Examiner fails to provide any evidence that it was
known in the art to use Scherrer’s equation to calculate full width at half
maximum. In fact, as Appellants point out, contrary to the Examiner’s
contention, the evidence on the record before us appears to suggest that
Scherrer’s equation cannot be used to accurately calculate full width at half
maximum. Ahmad Monshi et. al., Modified Scherrer Equation to Estimate
More Accurately Nano-Crystallite Size Using XRD, 2 World Journal of
Nano Science and Engineering, 154, 155 (right col.) (2012) (hereinafter
“Monshi”) (stating that the calculated full width at half maximum values
“[have] never been observed and cannot be true.”). Moreover, even if
Scherrer’s equation could have been used to calculate full width at half
maximum using crystallite size, the Examiner fails to provide any
justification for assuming that the value for K in Aramata is 1 and the x-ray
wavelength is 0.154 nm. Accordingly, we cannot find that Aramata, which
merely teaches the use of similar silicon nanoparticles as those recited in
claim 1, necessarily or inherently teaches that its silicon nanoparticles have a
full width at half maximum at a (111) plane of about 0.35° to about 0.5° as
measured by X-ray diffraction, as required by claim 1. Because both
rejections on appeal are based on this error, we cannot sustain the rejection
of any of claims 1, 2, 8-14, 18, 19, or 24-28.
4
Appeal 2016-003563
Application 13/100,273
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2,
8-14, 18, 19, and 24-28 is reversed.
REVERSED
5