Appeal No. 97-1897 3
Application No. 08/513,419
Hideaki et al. (EP ‘578) 0 404 578 Dec. 27, 1990
(Published European Patent Application)
THE REJECTION
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over EP ‘578 in view of Izuti and Takahashi.
OPINION
We agree with the appellants that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not well founded. Accordingly, we do not
sustain this rejection.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima
facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner relies upon a combination of three
references to reject the claimed subject matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The basic premise
of the rejection is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to have a solid polymer
electrolyte in a secondary battery.” See Answer, page 4. We disagree with the statement of the premise and the
conclusions therefrom reached by the examiner.
We find that the EP ‘578 reference discloses a secondary battery having an improved negative electrode. See
column 1, lines 6-9 and column 2, lines 38-45. The negative electrode layer comprises a composite of carbonaceous
material and a polymeric solid electrolyte. Id. However, as stated by the examiner, “[t]he reference does not include
a binder in its composite, the polymer is not described with the identical formulas as the instant claim and the
electrolyte is not included in the cathode composite.” See Answer, pages 3 and 4. In addition, we find no disclosure
that the polymeric electrolytes of
EP ‘578 are crosslinked.
As for the reference to Izuti which discloses the polymer electrolyte of the claimed subject matter, we find that the
polyelectrolyte is mixed with an ionic salt electrolyte and prepared in film form. See column 3, lines 33-41 and the
Examples. However, although there is a disclosure of utility in secondary batteries, column 1, lines 6-9, there is no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007