Appeal No. 2000-0307
Application No. 08/859,430
Regarding Pitts, in particular, the examiner accurately
points out that the graphite fibers disclosed are preferably
comminuted (column 3, lines 5-6). Insofar as a common dictionary
definition of the term "comminute" is to pulverize into powder,
we are convinced that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
fairly considered the comminuted graphite fibers of Pitts to be
in powder form.
Regarding Hohjo, the examiner presents the following in the
paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of the Answer:
Hohjo teaches that the whiskers should have a diameter
of 10 microns or smaller, or more preferably 0.0-1.0
microns. The ratio of the diameter (D) with the length
(L) should be L/D = 50 or more, or preferably 100 to
1,000. Following these teachings, if the diameter of
the whisker is 0.1 microns, and the L/D ratio is 100,
the length of the whisker would be 10 microns. Hence,
Hohjo suggests that both the length and the diameter of
the whisker particle can be below 30 microns. No
matter how the artisan chooses to calculate the average
particle size, it is less than 30 microns.
Hence, since Hohjo discloses graphite whiskers having both a
diameter and length less than the claimed 30 µm, we are satisfied
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have construed Hohjo
as teaching the use of graphite powder in a negative electrode
plate.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007