Appeal No. 1996-2758
Application No. 08/103,792
teaches using any organic solvent, inclusive of those having a
donor number of not larger than 5, which is useful for
dissolving the anions and cations of an electrolyte and
imparting an increased electric conductivity to an electrode.
Horiba specifically exemplifies 1, 2-dichloroethane as one of
the solvents employed, which, according to appellant, is an
organic solvent having a donor number of not larger than 5.
From our perspective, the above teachings would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to employ either 1, 2-
dichloroethane, as well as other appropriate exemplified
solvents, in the electrolyte described in Horiba with a
reasonable expectation of dissolving both the anions and
cations therein and improving its ability to increase the
conductivity of an electrode used in a secondary battery cell.
Note also that appellants have not demonstrated that the other
solvents exemplified in Horiba do not have a donor number of
not larger than 5. See, e.g., In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210,
212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) (the burden is on
appellants to show that the subject matter shown in the prior
art does not necessarily possess the functionally defined
limitations of their claimed subject matter).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007