Appeal No. 1997-2444
Application 08/248,941
and 10 of the specification and figure 4(b) of the drawings,
we agree with appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have interpreted this term to mean a microstructure with
specific physical characteristics and grain sizes as depicted
in figure 4(b). We do not find the examiner’s attempt at
correlating the atomic level structure of Higashimoto (answer,
page 5) with the herein claimed submicron microstructure
convincing in light of the above discussion and for reasons as
set forth in appellant’s brief.
The examiner further argues that Higashimoto teaches
an amorphous cathode product material noting that “the mere
step of dissolving V O in water would certainly not change the
2 5
amorphous material to a crystalline product” (answer, page 4).
However, the examiner’s reasoning is deficient in failing to
address the effect of the subsequent drying and heating of the
applied dissolved V O to form the cathode layer. See, e.g.,
2 5
the description of the cathode formation process at page 5 of
Higashimoto. While we are cognizant that Higashimoto (page 6,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007