Ex Parte Yang et al - Page 16

                Appeal 2007-1524                                                                              
                Application 09/770,725                                                                        
           1    presence of moisture in lithium secondary batteries.  The desirability of                     
           2    solving these general problems would have led the person of ordinary skill                    
           3    in the art to make the electrodes as free of moisture as possible.                            
           4          While Applicants would have us believe that slight differences in                       
           5    terms of composition are critical to whether the battery is susceptible to                    
           6    moisture, the prior art suggests otherwise.  Both Kurose and Watanabe                         
           7    undercut Applicants’ argument because these references teach the                              
           8    importance of eliminating water for a wide variety of electrode                               
           9    compositions.  Indeed, Applicants do not rely on any evidence to                              
          10    demonstrate that variations in the composition of the lithium oxide positive                  
          11    electrode material significantly affect absorption and release of water (i.e.,                
          12    that the variations in the composition of the lithium oxide positive electrode                
          13    material are critical to whether water detrimentally affects the characteristics              
          14    of the battery).  Here, we find it significant that Applicants do not                         
          15    unequivocally assert, much less prove, that one of ordinary skill in the art                  
          16    would not have expected that moisture would cause problems in the type of                     
          17    battery described in Takami.                                                                  
          18          We have considered the Yoshida Declaration but find that it is                          
          19    insufficient to overcome the Examiner’s rejection.  That Declaration merely                   
          20    establishes a difference in dissolution rates of transition metal into the                    
          21    electrolyte solution depending on the composition of the positive electrode.                  
          22    Specifically, the data are said to show that the rate of dissolution of Mn from               
          23    LiMn2O4 into the electrolyte is much higher than the rate of dissolution of Ni                
          24    from LiNiO2.  But Applicants have not established the relevance or                            
          25    significance of the difference in the dissolution rates to the question of                    
          26    whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected moisture to                      

                                                     16                                                       

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013