LG CHEM, LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2020

2020001314 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2020)

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.
13/863,623 04/16/2013 YounKyoung LEE LGCHEM 3.0F-2685 6455
86765 7590 12/04/2020
LGCHEM
Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP
20 Commerce Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
EXAMINER
HASKE, WOJCIECH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2020 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):
eOfficeAction@lernerdavid.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte YOUNKYOUNG LEE, SEONGMIN LEE,
JIHYUN KIM, SOOHYUN LIM, JAE HYUN LEE, and
JONG HO JEON
________________

Appeal 2020-001314
Application 13/863,623
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8–10, 16–21, 30, 31, and 33–36. Appeal
Br. 3. Claims 12–15 and 22–29 are withdrawn from consideration. Id. at 2.
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies LG Chem, Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed May 14, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), 1.
Appeal 2020-001314
Application 13/863,623

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Disclosed are an electrode active material containing
moisture in an amount less than 2,000 ppm per 1g of lithium
metal oxide or moisture in an amount less than 7,000 ppm per
1 cm3 of the lithium metal oxide, and an electrode containing
moisture in an amount less than 2,000 ppm per 1 cm3 of an
electrode mix.
Spec., Abstr.
Appellant’s Specification explains that a process for fabricating a
lithium secondary battery is broadly divided into four steps: preparing an
electrode material (a pre-cursor to the subsequently produced electrode),
producing an electrode, producing an electrode assembly, and fabricating a
battery. Spec. 2. According to Appellant, “[t]he production of the electrode
assembly and the battery is carried out in a dry room with a controlled
humidity, while the preparation of the electrode material and the production
of the electrode are carried out in air.” Id. Appellant explains that because
the absorption of moisture into the electrode material deteriorates battery
performance, removing moisture is essential. Id.
Appellant further explains that lithium titanium oxide (Li4Ti5O12) is a
preferred material for forming electrodes, but this material undesirably
absorbs moisture when exposed to air. Spec. 3. Appellant’s invention then
is to provide a lithium titanium oxide electrode that has moisture limited to
within a predetermined range. Id.

Appeal 2020-001314
Application 13/863,623

3
STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 16–21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ohzuku (US 2005/0170250 A1; published Aug. 4,
2005) (“Ohzuku ’250”). Final Action mailed Dec. 18, 2018 (“Final
Act.”), 4.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 30, 31, and 33–36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riley, Jr. (US 2005/0026037 A1;
published Feb. 3, 2005) (“Riley”) and Yang (US 2001/0016291 A1;
published Aug. 23, 2001). Final Act. 2–3.2
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Riley, Yang, and Ohzuku (US 2007/0231705 A1;
published Oct. 4, 2007) (“Ohzuku ’705”). Final Act. 3–4.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducts a
limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).

2 The heading of the rejection lists claim 32 as being rejected instead of
claims 30 and 31. Final Act. 2. However, claim 32 is canceled, and the
following paragraph of the rejection states that claims 30 and 31 are rejected.
Id.
Appeal 2020-001314
Application 13/863,623

4
ANALYSIS
I.
Independent claim 1, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed
claims that are directed to an electrode mix:
1. An electrode mix comprising:
a binder; and
an anode active material containing (a) moisture that is
equal to or greater than 900 ppm and is lower than 2,000 ppm
with respect to the anode active material and (b) a lithium
titanium oxide that is represented by the following Formula[,]
LiaTibO4, in which 0.5