Appeal No. 1997-0460
Application 08/207,990
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, to specify, in claim 1, “[a] particulate material” that
comprises at least particles of a cathode-active material coated with a “conducting polymer
composition,” which conducting “polymer composition” is defined by appellant as “a doped polymer
(oxidized, reduced or protonated)” (specification, e.g., pages 12-17), and, in claim 2, “[a] cathode” that
comprises at least such particles. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ; In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
The examiner, in applying Shackle to the appealed claims, admits in the statement of the
rejection that the reference “does not explicitly state that the cathodic particles are coated” but finds that
“the cathodic material is . . . obvious as . . . [Shackle mixes] the materials into a paste . . . [and thus]
[t]he cathodic material is inherently coated when mixed with a filler and solvent” (answer, pages 2.5 and
3). Appellant submits in his brief, with respect to the examiner’s position, that the method disclosed in
Shackle “cannot produce” the claimed particles, pointing out that the polymerizable materials in the
ionically conductive electrolyte component of the cathode composition of Shackle will form a structural
framework penetrated by an ionizable alkali, and that there is no suggestion of coating cathodic material
with a conductive filler, pointing out that because polyaniline is not soluble in the low volatile aprotic
polar solvents disclosed in the reference, it would remain in solution in polycarbonate or glymes if
soluble therein (page 4). Appellant contrasts the method of Shackle with the coating method disclosed
in the specification wherein a particle of cathode material is coated with the conductive polymer
composition in the presence of a solvent prior to incorporation in a cathode paste, and contends that the
process of the reference begins with the “formation of a cathode paste” without a prior coating step (id.,
pages 4-5). Appellant further submits that there is no suggestion that the cathode material should be
coated with the conductive filler for two reasons. First, Shackle teachings that good contact should be
maintained between the particles of cathode material and carbon particles and, second, where V6O13
and carbon particles were slurried with tetrahydrofuran to evaporation in Shackle Example 1, such a
process would result in the distribution of both particles in the cathode paste and not V6O13 particles
2 The references are listed at page 2 of the answer.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007