Appeal No. 2000-0307
Application No. 08/859,430
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Hohjo et al. (Hohjo) 5,156,935 Oct. 20, 1992
Pitts et al. (Pitts) 5,223,352 Jun. 29, 1993
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a negative
electrode plate for a lead storage battery which comprises, inter
alia, graphite powder. The powder has a mean particle size not
larger than 30 µm. According to appellants, "[t]he present
invention is drawn to a negative electrode that performs better
under heat and pressure" (page 4 of Brief, first paragraph).
Appealed claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pitts. The appealed claims also stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hohjo.
Appellants submit at page 4 of the Brief that "the rejected
claims stand or fall together" (third paragraph). Accordingly,
all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1, and
we will, therefore, limit our consideration to the examiner's
rejection of claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
-2–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007