Appeal No. 1996-2758
Application No. 08/103,792
Given that the limited electrolyte components described
and exemplified in Horiba serve the same purpose as
appellants’ and specifically include those claimed, we agree
with the examiner that it would have been obvious to arrive at
the claimed electrolyte comprising an aluminum chloride anion,
a quaternary ammonium cation and a solvent, such as 1, 2-
dichloroethane. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d
804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493
U.S. 975 (1989); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 444, 169 USPQ 423,
425 (CCPA 1971); In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681, 133 USPQ
275, 280 (CCPA 1962). One of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reasonable expectation that the above-mentioned
combination of an anion, a cation and a solvent would be
useful as the electrolyte components for a secondary battery
cell. Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874
F.2d at 809, 10 USPQ2d at 1847; In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants argue that Horiba does not suggest using an
organic solvent that has a donor number of not larger than 5.
See Brief, page 7. As indicated supra, however, Horiba
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007