Showa Denko Packaging Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

2019004981 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
14/702,920 05/04/2015 Koji MINAMITANI 30404.63 2639
96312 7590 06/30/2020
Showa Denko
c/o Keating & Bennett, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
Suite 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 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):
jkeating@kbilaw.com
sfunk@kbiplaw.com
uspto@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KOJI MINAMITANI

Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, 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 1, 3, 5–7, and 13. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to an electrochemical device using a
laminated material as an armoring body (Spec. ¶ 1). The Specification

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 Showa Denko
Packaging Co., LTD. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

2
describes that the armoring body can be used to armor lithium ion/polymer
secondary batteries, which are loaded on mobile devices (id. ¶ 3). The
laminated armoring material includes a metal foil employed in the center of
resin layers (id. ¶ 5). According to the Specification, removing a resin layer
to expose the metal foil allows the foil to be used as a conductor or a
soldering section (id.; Claim 1; Figs. 1A, 4A).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An electrochemical device comprising:
a device main body including a plurality of layers of each
of a positive electrode and a negative electrode laminated to
each other via a separator; and
an armoring body for accommodating the device main
body; wherein
the armoring body is constituted by a laminated armoring
material in which a heat-resistant resin layer is adhered to a first
surface of a metal foil layer and a thermal fusion resin layer is
adhered to a second surface of the metal foil layer;
at least one portion of the laminated armoring material
has a concave portion for storing the device main body, and a
flange that outwardly extends from an opening edge of the
concave portion;
the concave portion includes a side surface and a flat
bottom surface;
a metal exposed section in which the metal foil layer is
exposed is formed on the first surface and the second surface of
the metal foil layer as a conductive section;
each of the heat-resistant resin layer, the metal foil layer,
and the thermal fusion resin layer of the laminated armoring
material is located within the concave portion, forms the
concave portion and the flange, and includes a side surface and
a flat bottom surface that corresponds to the side surface and
the flat bottom surface of the concave portion;
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

3
the metal exposed section on the second surface of the
metal foil layer is formed at a portion of the flat bottom surface
of the concave portion; and
a terminal end of at least one of the positive electrode and
the negative electrode of the device main body is joined to the
conductive section in the armoring body.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 5–7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Langan et al. (US 2003/0059673 A1; pub.
Mar. 27, 2003; “Langan”) in view of Yamashita et al. (US
2002/0142178 A1; iss. Oct. 3, 2002; “Yamashita”).
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Langan in view of Yamashita, and further in view of Yageta et
al. (US 2009/0081542 A1; pub. Mar. 26, 2009; “Yageta”).
3. Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Fukuzawa et al. (JP 2004-031272;
pub. Jan. 29, 2004, and relying on a machine translation;
“Fukuzawa”).2
4. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Fukuzawa in view of Yageta.
5. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fukuzawa in view of Langan.

2 The Examiner and Appellant refer to JP 2004-031272 as “Nissan.” The
translation indicates that Fukuzawa is the first named inventor on the JP
2004-031272 reference. Accordingly, we refer to JP 2004-031272 as
Fukuzawa in this decision.
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

4
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Rejection (1): Obviousness over Langan in view of Yamashita
Appellant argues independent claim 1 separately (Appeal Br. 3–10).
Appellant’s argument regarding dependent claims 5–7 and 13 rely on
arguments made regarding claim 1 (id. at 10). Therefore, claims 5–7 and 13
will stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1
The Examiner’s finding and conclusions regarding claim 1 are located
on pages 2 to 4 of the Final Action and pages 3 to 5 of the Answer.
The Examiner finds that Langan teaches the features of the
electrochemical device of claim 1, but fails to teach, inter alia, a flange that
outwardly extends from an opening edge of the concave portion, which
stores a device main body (Ans. 3–4). The Examiner finds that Langan does
not teach that the concave portion includes a side surface and a flat bottom
surface (id. at 4). The Examiner finds that Langan also does not teach that
that a laminated armoring material’s heat resistant layer, metal foil layer, and
thermal fusion resin layer: (i) forms the concave portion and the flange and
(ii) includes a side surface and a flat bottom surface that corresponds to the
side surface and the flat bottom surface of the concave portion (id.).
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

5
Langan’s figure 1, as annotated by the Examiner and reproduced
below, illustrates a cross sectional view of a battery:

Figure 1 illustrates battery 1, including anode 3, cathode 5, separator 7
within housing or enclosure 9 (Langan ¶ 19). Langan’s housing 9 material
comprises conductive layer 13 sandwiched between pressure sealable
polymer layer 11 and outer protective polymer layer 15 (id. ¶ 21). Langan’s
opening 19 in housing 9 forms an electrical contact of battery 1 by exposing
a portion of the surface of conductive layer 13 (id. ¶ 26).
The Examiner finds that Yamashita teaches the limitations missing
from Langan (Ans. 4–5). In particular, the Examiner finds that Yamashita
teaches
the desirability for the armoring body to include a flange 9 that
outwardly extends from an opening edge of the concave portion
(hollow part 7), the concave portion includes a side surface
(side wall 8) and a flat bottom surface (outer package body 5a),
and that each of the heat resistant layer 61, metal foil layer 62,
and thermal fusion resin layer 63 form[s] the concave portion
and the flange and includes a side surface and a flat bottom
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

6
surface that corresponds to the side surface and the flat bottom
surface of the concave portion.
(Id.). Yamashita’s figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates views of different
types of polymer battery module packages:

Figures 2(d) and 2(e) illustrate, inter alia, the formation of polymer
battery 1, including polymer package body 5a, which is formed by
embossing packaging laminated sheet 10 to thereby provide sheet 10 with
hollow part 7 and flange 9 (Yamashita ¶ 46). Yamashita’s polymer battery
module 2 is placed in hollow part 7 of package body 5a; cover 5t is formed
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

7
by cutting packaging laminated sheet 10; and cover 5t is bonded to flange 9
of package body 5a by heat-sealing (Yamashita ¶ 46).
The Examiner finds Yamashita teaches that “forming the package
bodies 5a with flanges and sidewalls[,] that rise as upright as possible[,]
allow for the battery module 2 to be closely contained within the package
. . . increasing the efficiency of the device” (Ans. 5 (citing Yamashita ¶¶ 46–
50)). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious at the time
of the invention to have formed Langan’s housing assembly with
Yamashita’s flange, sidewalls, and flat bottom surfaces, which define the
hollow section, in order to have close contact with the battery cells (Ans. 5).
Appellant argues that, given the context of Langan’s invention, the
Examiner’s motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Langan, in view of Yamashita, is illogical (Appeal Br. 7–8). Specifically,
Appellant contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have formed
Langan’s housing assembly with Yamashita’s sidewalls, which rise as
upright as possible to allow for a battery module to be closely contained
within a package, because the sidewalls of Langan’s housing 9 “are already
perfectly upright and in close contact with the device main body” (id. at 7;
see Langan Fig. 1). Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s purported
motivation to modify Langan in view of Yamashita is not supported by any
prior art or evidence, and instead is entirely based on improper hindsight”
(Appeal Br. 7). We agree.
The Examiner has not adequately shown why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have viewed Yamashita’s upright sidewalls 8 as a modification
that would have improved Langan’s housing 9. We find that the Examiner
engaged in impermissible hindsight in rejecting claim 1.
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

8
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1,
5–7 and 13.
Rejection (2): Obviousness of claim 3 over Langan in view of Yamashita and
Yageta
Appellant relies on arguments made regarding claim 1 (id. at 10). We
find those arguments unpersuasive for the reasons noted above.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 3.
Rejection (3): Anticipation of claims 1, 6, and 7 by Fukuzawa
Appellant argues independent claim 1 separately (Reply Br. 2–3).
Appellant’s argument regarding dependent claims 6 and 7 rely on arguments
made regarding claim 1 (id. at 3). Therefore, claims 6 and 7 will stand or
fall with claim 1.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that independent claim is anticipated by
Fukuzawa (Ans. 7–8).
Figure 1 of Fukuzawa, as annotated by the Examiner and reproduced
below, illustrates a cross sectional view of a battery:

Fukuzawa’s figure 1 illustrates battery unit B, including electrode
laminate 13 in which positive electrode plate 17, separator 21, and negative
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

9
electrode plate 19 are laminated and sealed to form outer case 15 made of
laminate films 15a and 15b (Fukuzawa 1). Fukuzawa’s laminate films 15a
and 15b include outer resin layer 29, inner resin layer 31, on both surfaces of
aluminum layer 27 (id.). Fukuzawa’s figure 1 illustrates, inter alia, that a
part of outer resin layer 29 is peeled off to form negative electrode terminal
contact portion 39, in which aluminum layer 27 is exposed (id.).
The Examiner finds that Fukuzawa describes each feature of the
electrochemical device of claim 1, including
an armoring body for accommodating the device main body;
wherein the armoring body is constituted by a laminated
armoring material in which a heat-resistant resin layer (inner
resin layer 31) is adhered to a first surface of a metal foil layer
(aluminum layer 27) and a thermal fusion resin layer (outer
resin layer 29) is adhered to a second surface of the metal foil
layer.
(Ans. 7).
Appellant argues that Fukuzawa does not anticipate claim 1 (Reply
Br. 2). Specifically, Appellant argues that Fukuzawa does not describe a
metal exposed section, which is formed at a portion of the flat bottom
surface of the concave portion (id. at 3). Appellant argues that Fukuzawa’s
“metal exposed section is formed at a side surface of a concave portion and,
thus, it is impossible to form a deep concave portion” (id.).
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that the Examiner
reversibly erred. Contrary to Appellant’s position, claim 1 does not require
formation of “a deep concave portion” (id.). Furthermore, Appellant’s focus
on Fukuzawa’s terminal contact portion 35 at a concave portion’s side
surface is misplaced (see id.). Claim 1 does not require that an electrode’s
terminal end must join the armoring body’s conductive section only at “the
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

10
metal exposed portion . . . formed at a portion of the flat bottom surface of
the concave portion.” Rather, claim 1 does not restrict where the connection
between an electrode’s terminal end and the conductive section takes place.
Therefore, it is not dispositive that Fukuzawa’s electrode current collector 25
is joined to exposed aluminum layer 27 at a side surface of a concave
portion (see Fukuzawa Fig. 1). As the Examiner finds, claim 1 reads on
Fukuzawa’s “metal exposed section []39 on the second surface of the metal
foil layer 27 []formed at a portion of the flat bottom surface of the concave
portion” (Ans. 8).
We find that the preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s
finding of anticipation. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s
§ 102(a)(1) or § 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7.
Rejection (4): Obviousness of claim 3 over Fukuzawa in view of Yageta
Appellant relies on arguments made regarding claim 1 (Reply Br. 3).
We find those arguments unpersuasive for the reasons noted above.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 3.
Rejection (5): obviousness of claims 5 and 13 over Fukuzawa in view of
Langan
Appellant relies on arguments made regarding claim 1 (Reply Br. 3).
We find those arguments unpersuasive for the reasons noted above.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5 and 13.
Appeal 2019-004981
Application 14/702,920

11
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Reference(s)  Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–7, 13 § 103 Langan,
Yamashita
1, 5–7, 13
3 § 103 Langan,
Yamashita,
Yageta
3
1, 6, 7 § 102(a)(1),
§ 102(a)(2)
Fukuzawa 1, 6, 7
3 § 103 Fukuzawa,
Yageta
3
5, 13 § 103 Fukuzawa,
Langan
5, 13
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5–7, 13

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED