Appeal 2007-0693
Application 10/188,519
1 combined weight of ethylene and propylene) of 70-95%
2 for the copolymers (Br. 9-11); and
3 (4) claims 1-20 would not have been obvious in view of
4 Boer because the reference disclosure “would dissuade
5 the person of ordinary skill in the art from investigating a
6 copolymer (i.e. a terpolymer) in which ethylene,
7 propylene, and a third monomer, such as acrylic acid,
8 alkacrylic acid, or an ester thereof, were all present” (Br.
9 12), the reference does not disclose or suggest the lower
10 limit of 70% by weight for the amount of ethylene and
11 propylene in the copolymers (Br. 13), and Tables 17 and
12 18 of the specification establish the criticality of the
13 claimed weight range.
14 We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We affirm,
15 however, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of all claims. Because our
16 affirmance of the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection addresses the patentability of
17 all claims, we do not reach the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) issue.
18
19 ISSUES
20 Has the Examiner established that the disclosure, as originally filed,
21 fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors,
22 at the time the application was filed, did not have possession of a battery
23 including a binder copolymer with a –COO- Na+ or –COO- K+ group as
24 recited in claims 5, 10, 15, and 20?
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013