Ex Parte Goto et al - Page 19

              Appeal 2007-0693                                                                     
              Application 10/188,519                                                               

          1         We have considered this evidence but do not find it outweighs the              
          2   evidence of obviousness.  Table 17 includes data for four classes of batteries       
          3   (D1-D4) in which the ethylene-propylene content of the binder polymer is             
          4   varied (60%, 70%, 80%, 95%, and 98%) and the corresponding discharge                 
          5   capacities and electrode strengths are determined.  The D1 binder is said to         
          6   be an ethylene-propylene-acrylic acid terpolymer, the D2 binder is said to be        
          7   an ethylene-propylene-methyl acrylic acid terpolymer, the D3 binder is said          
          8   to be an ethylene-propylene-methacrylic acid terpolymer, and the D4 binder           
          9   is said to be an ethylene-propylene-methyl methacrylic acid terpolymer.              
         10   (Br. 14; Examples 14-17 of the Specification.)                                       
         11         The alleged criticality of the 70% lower limit for the ethylene-               
         12   propylene content is irrelevant because Boer teaches at least 80% by weight          
         13   for the mixture of hydrocarbon olefin group-containing monomers when                 
         14   they are interpolymerized with another olefinic group containing monomer             
         15   such as acrylic acid.  (Col. 5: 10-18.)  As to the recited 95% by weight             
         16   ethylene-propylene content upper limit, the electrode strengths are alleged to       
         17   be “2” at 95% by weight and “1” at 98% by weight for batteries D1 and D4.            
         18   Appellants have not directed us to any evidence establishing that a person           
         19   having ordinary skill in the art would have considered a difference of “2”           
         20   versus “1” to be unexpected, especially where no explanation is given as to          
         21   how the value of “2” or “1” is determined.  In this regard, it is not enough to      
         22   merely establish a difference in results – the results must be shown to be           
         23   unexpected to a person having ordinary skill in the art.  In re Harris, 409          
                                                                                                  
              2001)(explaining that the parties are responsible for providing all relevant         
              arguments and pointing out with specificity the relevant support for their           
              arguments); 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).                                                  
                                                19                                                 

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013