Appeal 2006-3027
Application 10/369,706
to improve the high temperature charge characteristic over the first coating
layer (of the cobalt compound) in the electrode disclosed by Maruta (see
factual finding (8) listed above). We note that Kimiya teaches a nickel
skeleton, the same nickel oxide active material as disclosed by Maruta, and
the same Co oxyhydroxide layer to improve conductivity as taught by
Maruta (see factual findings (1) and (8) listed above). Additionally, we
determine that it would have been well within the ordinary skill in this art to
substitute the entire active material of Kimiya for the active material of
Maruta, with its attendant benefits (see factual finding (2) listed above). We
determine that the complex “multi-metals oxide” active material taught by
Kimiya has two compositions or layers on the active material, thus reading
on the first and second coating layers of the claims on appeal (see factual
findings (7), (8), and (9) listed above). As taught and exemplified by
Kimiya, the foamed nickel substrate of the reference has nickel oxide
(NiOOH) as the active material, with various compositions of metallic
elements in the interior and the surface layer of the complex oxide (see
factual findings (8) and (9) listed above). As shown by Figure 3 of Kimiya
and the compositions listed in Table 6, the interior layer may be a cobalt
compound and the surface layer may be a compound of yttrium (Figure 3),
calcium or nickel (Table 6, Example 14). Although these layers are coated
on discrete particles of the active material (Kimiya, col. 10, ll. 53-56), we
determine that these coatings are “laid on a surface portion of the active
material” within the scope of the claims on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013