Appeal 2007-2550
Application 10/321,182
The combination of Fujita’s positive temperature coefficient (PTC)
device with Kucherovsky’s flexible battery structure proposed by the
Examiner would have included placing Fujita’s PTC between, for example,
the electrical contact 52 (i.e., external terminal) and anode current collector
28 (i.e., internal current collector) (Answer 4). The Examiner concludes that
such placement of Fujita’s PTC in Kucherovsky’s flexible battery would
have been obvious in order to provide a safety device for the battery that
would disconnect the power and prevent the battery from exploding when it
is exposed to extreme conditions (Answer 4). We agree.
As discussed previously with regard to claim 38, Kucherovsky
discloses that the connection between electrical contact 52 (i.e., external
terminal) and anode current collector 28 (i.e., internal current collector), for
example, is partially contained within the seal junction. Accordingly, when
Kucherovsky’s electrical contact 52 (i.e., external terminal) and anode
current collector 28 (i.e, internal current collector) connection would have
been modified to include Fujita’s PTC between them, the PTC, electrical
contact 52 (i.e., external terminal) and anode current collector 28 (i.e.,
internal current collector) would have been at least partially in contact with
the seal junction. Therefore, the combination of Fujita’s PTC with
Kucherovsky’s flexible battery would have included a discontinuous current
carrying structure within the seal area as claimed.
Regarding Appellants’ lack of motivation argument, we note that the
Examiner’s motivation for the combination of Kucherovsky in view of
Fujita comes directly from the references. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350,
1357-58, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Specifically, the
Examiner indicated that providing the PTC adds a safety device to the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013