Appeal 2006-3027
Application 10/369,706
Appellants contend that Kimiya is directed to a paste type nickel
electrode, which is substantially different from the porous sintered nickel
substrate of Maruta, and thus there is no teaching or suggestion that the
layers of Kimiya would work on the substrate of Maruta (Br. 8).
Appellants contend that Kimiya does not teach any second coating
layer but requires a “complex layer” which is a layer on the discrete particles
which make up the active material (Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner contends that Kimiya is directed to a nickel-based
electrode, and teaches improved results for an alkaline storage battery when
a surface layer on the electrode substrate has an average composition
including one element selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Ba, Y,
Cd, Co, Bi, and lanthanoids (Answer 5 and 8).
Accordingly, the issues presented in this appeal are as follows: (1)
would one of ordinary skill in the art have applied the teachings of Kimiya,
directed to a foamed nickel type electrode for an alkaline storage battery, to
modify the porous sintered electrode of Maruta?; and (2) in so modifying,
would the teachings of Kimiya applied to the electrode substrate of Maruta
produced the claimed two coating layer nickel electrode?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore we
AFFIRM the sole rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013