Appeal No. 95-1827
Application 07/816,157
the electrodes (specification, page 4, lines 22-31, page 8,
lines 31-36, and Figure 4). We see no difference between the
type of subject matter here claimed and claims presented to a
battery containing an electrolyte (for example, see Class
429/subclass 188 in the PTO Manual of Classification).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the examiner
has failed to show that all of the limitations of appealed
claim 23 are disclosed or suggested by Stillman. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 23, 24, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. §§
102(a) and (b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stillman is reversed.
REVERSED
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007