Ex Parte Loganathan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

13942192 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/942, 192
75576 7590
Johnson Controls, Inc.
c/o Fletcher Yoder PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269
07/15/2013
08/28/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kavi Geetharani Loganathan
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.
12PS091-US/JOCP:0192 3627
EXAMINER
PASSA, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 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 KA VI GEETHARANI LOGANATHAN,
JUNWEI JIANG, and PERRY M. WYATT
Appeal2017-010416
Application 13/942,192
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-7 and 11-22. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed July 15, 2013, the
Examiner's Final Office Action (Final) dated September 9, 2016,
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed February 8, 2017, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) dated June 1, 2017, and Appellants' Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed August 1, 2017.
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Johnson Controls Technology Company, which
is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2017-010416
Application 13/942,192
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to an electrochemical cell electrolyte and a lead
acid battery, wherein the electrolyte includes water, sulfuric acid, and at
least one octylphenol ethoxylate (Spec. ,r,r 3-8). The Inventors disclose that
this electrolyte, and specifically the addition of octylphenol ethoxylate
surfactants, reduces the production of gasses, particularly hydrogen gas,
which could lead to reduced charge efficiency and increased danger of cell
rupture or leakage (id. ,r,r 2, 23).
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An electrochemical cell electrolyte formed from ingredients
comprising: water, sulfuric acid, one or more sulfate salts, and
at least one octylphenol ethoxylate of Formula 1:
Formula 1
where n is a natural number from at least 1 to at most 16,
wherein the octylphenol ethoxylate is present at a concentration
effective to substantially reduce hydrogen gas evolution when a
lead-acid battery having the electrochemical cell electrolyte is
subjected to an overpotential, and wherein the one or more
sulfate salts of the electrochemical cell electrolyte consist of
sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate, aluminum sulfate, cobalt
sulfate, copper sulfate, magnesium sulfate, cadmium sulfate, or
any combination thereof.
Pending independent claim 12 recites a lead acid battery including the
electrolyte as recited in claim 1.
2
Appeal2017-010416
Application 13/942,192
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14, and 16-223 as unpatentable over
Ghaemi4 in view ofWillis, 5 as evidenced by Ghaemi[1]; 6 and
2. Claims 13 and 15 as unpatentable over Ghaemi in view of
Willis, Ghaemi[ 1], and Dittmann. 7,s
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue before us in this appeal is whether Appellant has
identified reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Ghaemi teaches an
3 The Examiner's statement of this rejection fails to include claims 5-7 and
20-22 (Ans. 3). However, in the body of this rejection, the Examiner
specifically discusses these omitted claims (id. at 4). In addition, Appellant
recognizes that claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14, and 16-22 are subject to this rejection
(Appeal Br. 5). It is apparent that the omission of claims 5-7 and 20-22
from the rejection statement is inadvertent and we have corrected the
statement according! y.
4 M. Ghaemi et al., Influence of the N anionic Surfactant Triton X-100 on
Electrocrystallization and Electrochemical Performance of Lead Dioxide
Electrode, 157 J. POWER SOURCES 550-562 (2006) ("Ghaemi").
5 Willis, US 5,945,236, issued August 31, 1999.
6 M. Ghaemi et al., Improved Performance of Rechargeable Alkaline
Batteries Via Surfactant-Mediated Electrosynthesis of Mn02, 141 J. POWER
SOURCES 340-3 50 (2005) ("Ghaemi[ 1 ]").
7 Dittmann et al., US 4,425,412, issued January 10, 1984 ("Dittmann").
8 Claims 13 and 15 depend from claim 12 which was rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Ghaemi, Willis, and
Ghaemi[ 1]. Because the Examiner relies on Dittmann as evidence that the
feature of claims 13 and 15 would have been obvious, it is apparent that this
rejection depends from Rejection 1. As such, we have corrected the
statement of rejection to include Ghaemi[l].
3
Appeal2017-010416
Application 13/942,192
electrolyte including water, sulfuric acid, and at least one octylphenol
ethoxylate ofFornmla 1, i.e., Triton® X-100. We answer this question in
the affirmative and, therefore, will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections based on the combination of Ghaemi, Willis, and Ghaemi[ 1].
The Examiner finds "Ghaemi teaches an electrochemical cell
electrolyte formed from ingredients comprising: water, sulfuric acid
(abstract), and at least one ocylphenol ethoxylate of Formula 1 (Triton[®]
X-100) (abstract) where n is a natural number from at least 1 to at most 16
(Triton[®] X-100)" (Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds that "the samples
are immersed in a sulfuric acid solution" such that the ordinary artisan
"would understand that some of the sulfuric acid would end up in the
electrolyte" (Ans. 13). In addition, the Examiner finds that Willis teaches
sulfuric acid for use in lead acid batteries is "extremely common" and
applies additives within a sulfuric acid electrolyte (id.).
However, Appellant argues that Ghaemi fails to disclose an electrolyte
including both sulfuric acid and Triton® X-100 (Appeal Br. 7). Appellant
contends that Ghaemi instead teaches an electrolyte comprising nitric acid
and Triton® X-100 for the production of lead dioxide for producing an
electrode used in a sulfuric acid battery (id. at 7-8). Appellant urges that
where Ghaemi refers to immersing samples in a sulfuric acid solution, these
samples are the lead dioxide samples produced in nitric acid with and
without Triton® X-100 (id. at 8). Appellant further urges that Ghaemi
teaches these lead dioxide samples are rinsed prior to use in the sulfuric acid
solution, thereby removing any Triton® X-100 (id.). Moreover, Appellant
contends that regardless of whether sulfuric acid is commonly used in lead
4
Appeal2017-010416
Application 13/942,192
acid batteries, the cited references do not teach or fairly suggest an
electrolyte ... that includes sulfuric acid and Triton[®] X-100" (id. at 9).
Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error. We find that
Ghaemi is directed to the effect of Triton® X-100 on the production of lead
dioxide for use in electrodes for lead acid batteries, and teaches the addition
of Triton® X-100 to nitric acid, rather than sulfuric acid, for lead dioxide
production (Ghaemi, 550-552, Abstract and Experimental section 2.1 ). As
Appellant contends, Ghaemi' s samples of lead dioxide are produced in nitric
acid with Triton® X-100, and are then rinsed and dried prior to being made
into electrodes for immersion in sulfuric acid (id.). In addition, the
Examiner fails to articulate how and why Ghaemi would have been modified
to arrive at the claimed invention merely because Willis teaches sulfuric acid
is "extremely common" in lead acid batteries. We find no support in
Ghaemi nor Willis for the addition of Triton® X-100 to an aqueous solution
of sulfuric acid. 9
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
9 We note Ghaemi[ 1] is directed to the effect of surfactants, including
Triton® X-100, on the production of manganese dioxide for use in
manganese dioxide-zinc batteries, and teaches the addition of Triton® X-
I 00 to aqueous sulfuric acid electrolyte containing manganese sulfate
(Ghaemi[l], 340-341, particularly Experimental section 2, ,r 1). However,
the Examiner fails to articulate a basis under which either Ghaemi would
have been modified in view of Ghaemi[ 1] to substitute the sulfuric acid for
nitric acid in the production of lead dioxide or Ghaemi[ 1] would have been
modified to substitute one of Willis' metal sulfates for the manganese
sulfate.
5
Appeal2017-010416
Application 13/942,192
(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"). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Here, because the Examiner's obviousness rejections
are based on an erroneous finding, the Examiner has not carried the burden
of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual basis for the
conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-7 and 11-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
6