Appeal No. 1996-2758
Application No. 08/103,792
Further, appellants argue that Horiba fails to teach or
suggest electrodeposition of aluminum as required in claim 20.
We do not agree. From our perspective, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “electrodeposition of aluminum”
includes the doping of aluminum (deposition of aluminum into
an electrode) taught by Horiba. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (during
prosecution of a patent application, claims therein are given
the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification). Even were we to conclude that
“electrodeposition” does not include “doping” as suggested by
appellants at pages 2 and 3 of their Reply Brief, our
conclusion would not be altered. Since the same or similar
electrode would be subject to the same electrolyte in a
secondary battery cell under the same or similar conditions,
we are of the view that “electrodeposition” of aluminum would
necessarily follow in the process described in Horiba.
Moreover, we note appellants’ arguments regarding the
criticality of an organic solvent having a donor number of not
greater than five and the impossibility of electrodeposition
of aluminum in the process of Horiba. See, e.g., Brief, pages
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007