Appeal 2007-1118
Application 10/237,089
III. DECISION
The decision of Examiner to reject claims 1-14 and 16-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakashita in view of Umeno is
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring-in-result.
I concur with the panel's decision to affirm the Examiner's § 103
rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20.
I agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art to have been led to
combine the coating of Umeno with the particles of Sakashita. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the problems
addressed by Umeno would also have been experienced by Sakashita due to
the presence of Si. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected that coating Sakashita’s SiOx particles would have
suppressed expansion during lithium ion alloying, and prevent further
oxidation during charging and discharging, as well as provide improved
conductivity has taught by Umeno.
I also agree that Appellants’ evidence of unexpected results is
insufficient to overcome the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants have failed to point to evidence indicating that the results were
considered to be unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. “It is well
settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence.
Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not
suffice.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687
(Fed.Cir.1995) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013