Sang-Kyu CHOI et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2020

12980713 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
12/980,713 12/29/2010 Sang-Kyu CHOI LGCHEM3.9-2639 CON 5195
86765 7590 03/27/2020
LGCHEM
Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP
20 Commerce Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
EXAMINER
MCDERMOTT, HELEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2020 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 SANG-KYU CHOI, KWANG HO YOO,
and YOUNG JOON SHIN

Appeal 2020-000772
Application 12/980,713
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14, 16, 19, 27, and 30. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A petition to make special was granted
in this application on November 2, 2012.
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LG Chem,
Ltd. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000772
Application 12/980,713

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of manufacturing a
pouch type lithium ion polymer battery (Spec. 1:14–15; Claim 14).
Claim 14 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
A method for manufacturing a lithium ion polymer
battery, which comprises steps of:
(a) immersing a battery cell including a negative
electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator in an electrolytic
bath to allow electrolyte to be impregnated into the interior of
the battery cell;
(b) subsequently activating the battery cell by a cycle
reaction in a state in which it is still immersed in the electrolytic
bath, wherein the step (b) is performed at an SOC (State of
Charge) 30% to SOC 50%;
(c) taking the battery cell out of the electrolytic bath;
(d) placing the battery cell on a mounting stand or an
empty bath at 19°C to 25°C for about 1 hour to eliminate extra
electrolyte, such that the battery cell becomes a dry cell in
which the electrolyte is present in a jelly form; and
(e) inserting the battery cell into a pouch and then sealing
the pouch, whereby electrolyte does not enter a seal of the
pouch,
wherein an electrolyte leakage amount of the battery cell
after performing sealing ranges from 0.2% by weight to 0.5%
by weight of total weight of impregnated electrolyte.

Appellant appeals the following rejections listed in the Advisory
Action dated January 30, 2019:
1. Claims 14, 19, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Park2 (KR 10-0824869, published Apr. 23,

2 We refer to the machine translation of Park accessed on March 18, 2020
from the Korean Patent Office website at
http://engpat.kipris.or.kr/pmt/patent/patentRTT.jsp. The page numbering
referenced is based upon the machine translation document.
Appeal 2020-000772
Application 12/980,713

3
2008) in view of Chi (US 5,750,282, issued May 12, 1998).
2. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Park in view of Chi and Ikeda (JP 10-334926, published Dec. 18,
1998).

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the rejection of
claim 14 over Park in view of Chi are located on pages 2 to 4 of the
Advisory Action.
Appellant argues that Chi does not teach an aging step can be
performed after removing the electrode assembly from the container (i.e.,
electrolyte bath) (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant contends that the Chi teaches
one of ordinary skill in the art to immerse the lithium cell in a liquid
electrolyte bath, charge the lithium cell, and maintain the charged cell in the
electrolyte bath at a disclosed temperature for a disclosed period of time
without removing the charged cell from the electrolyte bath (Appeal Br. 5–
6). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s position that it would have been
obvious to add an aging step as taught by Chi at the claimed temperature and
time as an additional step to Park’s method after curing and removing the
electrode assembly from the container is contrary to Chi’s teachings (Appeal
Br. 5). Appellant contends that based upon Chi’s teachings the skilled
artisan would not have added an aging step of Chi after removing the
electrode assembly from the container (i.e., electrolyte solution) (Appeal Br.
6).
Appeal 2020-000772
Application 12/980,713

4
The Examiner acknowledges that Park does not teach the state of
charge to which the cycle reaction is performed, and does not teach that the
battery cell is mounted at 19°C to 25°C for about 1 hour (Advisory Act. 3).
The Examiner finds that Chi teaches that the lithium cell may have the
efficacy of its passivating layer improved to increase the heat stability of the
cell, by aging the cell at a temperature between about 20°C and about 65°C
for a period of time from about 1 hour to about 2 months after the cell has
been charged to 10% to about 100% of the cell’s maximum acceptable
charge (Advisory Act. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to perform the cycle reaction of Park to an intermediate voltage
between 10% to about 100% of the cell’s maximum acceptable voltage and
to age the mounted cell at a temperature between 20 to 65°C for about 1
hour to 2 months as taught by Chi to increase the heat stability of the cell by
increasing the efficacy of its passivating layer (Advisory Act. 3-4).
The Examiner explains in the Advisory Action dated January 30, 2019
that the proposed combination includes adding Chi’s aging step at the
claimed temperature and time as an additional step to the method of Park
after performing the curing step and removing the electrode assembly from
the container (Advisory Act. 7).
Therefore, we understand the Examiner’s combination of Park and
Chi’s teachings to be based on adding a second aging step for the lithium
cell as taught by Chi after Park’s curing step for the lithium cell electrolyte.
The Examiner finds that Chi’s teachings are combinable with Park because
Chi’s disclosed aging step is not dependent on the sequence of adding the
electrolyte, and would provide a clear benefit to Park (Ans. 9). The
Appeal 2020-000772
Application 12/980,713

5
Examiner finds that because Chi does not use an electrolyte bath step, Chi is
not specific as to when in relation to an electrolyte bath step the disclosed
aging step should be performed (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that Chi’s
teaching in column 4, lines 7–14 is related to forming a final battery cell in a
sealed pouch with electrolyte (i.e., step S6 in Park) and is not the electrolyte
main-liquid step (S1) of Park where multiple electrode assemblies are
initially put in a container with electrolyte as analogized by Appellant (Ans.
7).
We find that Chi teaches performing an aging step after charging a
lithium cell (col. 2, ll. 44–47). Chi exemplifies that the charging of the
lithium cell is done after filling the pouch with electrolyte. The charged cell
with the electrolyte in the pouch is then aged by holding the charged cell at a
temperature and for a time (col. 2, ll. 21–29; col. 4, ll. 1–14). Chi’s
examples all include charging the cell while in a liquid electrolyte and aging
the charged cell after charging. Id. The Examiner finds that since Chi does
not teach an electrolyte bath step, Chi is not specific on when the aging step
should be performed (Ans. 8). Chi does teach, however, that the charging is
done after placing the lithium cell in electrolyte and then the charged cell is
aged at a particular time and temperature (col. 2, ll. 21–29, col. 4, ll. 1–14).
Park teaches steps S1 to S6 of the process to form a lithium polymer
battery (abstract). Step S2 is described as the electrode assembly
impregnation step (Park translation 8). Steps S3, S4 and S5 are,
respectively, the electrode assembly pressure step, the electrode assembly
initial charge phase, and the electrode assembly curing step (Park translation
8). During step S2 liquid electrolyte is poured into container 200 and
multiple electrode assemblies 100 are placed in the container (Park
Appeal 2020-000772
Application 12/980,713

6
translation 8; Fig. 3a). During step S3 the electrode assemblies undergo a
pressing step (Park translation 8–9, Fig. 3b). During step S4 an initial
charge is applied to the electrode assemblies using a power source 220 (Park
translation 9, Fig. 3c). At step S5 the electrode assembly undergoes a curing
step to polymerize the electrolyte of the monomer (Park translation 9). The
Examiner’s proposal to add a step of aging the lithium cell after curing step
S5 in Park when the lithium cell is out of the liquid electrolyte but before the
assembly step S6 of the lithium cell in a pouch does not appear to be
supported or suggested by the teachings of the references (Advisory Act. 7).
Chi does not appear to teach that the aging step is performed any time
after charging the cell as the Examiner finds (Ans. 8). Rather, Chi teaches
“the cell is charged . . . and then the cell is aged in accordance with the
teachings of this invention.” (Chi, col. 2, ll. 45–48). Chi’s examples
disclose that immediately after charging the lithium cells are aged (col. 2, ll.
21–29; col. 4, ll. 1–14). In light of these teachings, Chi may have suggested
aging after the charging step S4 in Park’s process while the lithium cells are
in the liquid electrolyte and container 200. Chi does not appear to suggest,
as the Examiner found, that the aging step may be performed on a cured
lithium cell where the electrolyte has been polymerized to jelly-like form
and is removed from the liquid electrolyte in the container. Thus, the
Examiner’s determination that the combined teachings of Park and Chi
would have suggested an additional aging step after the curing the
electrolyte appears to be based on impermissible hindsight.
In our view, the Examiner has not adequately established that the
combined teachings of Park and Chi would have suggested “placing the
battery cell on a mounting or an empty bath at 19°C to 25°C for about 1 hour
Appeal 2020-000772
Application 12/980,713

7
to eliminate extra electrolyte, such that the battery cell becomes a dry cell in
which the electrolyte is present in a jelly form.” Therefore, on this record,
we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 14, 19, 27, and 30 over
Park in view of Chi. We reverse the § 103 rejection of claim 16 over the
combined teachings of Park in view of Chi and Ikeda for the same reasons.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14, 19, 27, 30 103 Park, Chi, 14, 19,
27, 30
16 103 Park, Chi, Ikeda 16
Overall
Outcome
14, 16,
19, 27, 30

REVERSED