Appeal 2007-0693
Application 10/188,519
1 2 hours in a -20 degrees C environment.” (Specification
2 13:5-9.)
3 15. According to the present specification, “[s]trength of the
4 negative electrode was tested by applying 1.5 cm-square
5 cellophane adhesive tape on the surface of the negative
6 electrode and measuring the force required to peel off the
7 negative electrode mix...” (Specification 13: 9-11.)
8 16. The Specification does not explain how the force required to
9 peel off the negative electrode mix is determined.
10 17. The D1 binder is said to be an ethylene-propylene-acrylic
11 acid copolymer, the D2 binder is said to be an ethylene-
12 propylene-methyl acrylic acid copolymer, the D3 binder is
13 said to be an ethylene-propylene-methacrylic acid
14 copolymer, and the D4 binder is said to be an ethylene-
15 propylene-methyl methacrylic acid copolymer. (Br. 14;
16 Examples 14-17 of the Specification.)
17 18. Appellants have not established how a person having
18 ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the electrode
19 strength differences reported in Table 17.
20 19. Table 18 of the present Specification reports discharge
21 capacity at -20 degrees C and electrode strength as a
22 function of ethylene and propylene contents.
23 20. Table 18 does not compare the claimed invention against the
24 closest prior art.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013