Appeal No. 2001-0106
Application 08/855,811
Rejection E
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 stand further rejected under 35 USC 103 as being
unpatentable [over] the teachings of the U.S. Patents to Bruder in view of Thomson.
Bruder discloses the essential structure as claimed in claims 1, 6, and 8
(although this rejection for an unexplained reason is not applied against claim 6). At
column 2, lines 5 – 33 the prior art conventional practice of manufacturing so-called
“Leclanche cells” is outlined. Terminal current collectors are formed by laminating
tinned steel or aluminum foil to a conductive plastic substrate. The statement at column
2, lines 13-17 is especially telling. “While it has been suggested that these metals can
be laminated directly to the conductive plastic substrate, in practice this is not practical
without the use of an intermediate conductive plastic adhesive.”
This disclosure unambiguously teaches the metal substrate of claims 1 and 8,
and a conductive adhesive as required by claim 1 and 8). It does not expressly teach
the layer of coupling agent recited in claims 1 and 8.
Thomson, however, teaches the identical coupling agent for use in metal-polymer
applications to greatly improve adhesion (column 1, line 25 and column 2, lines 24 and
31-33) by coating (column 2, line 46) in various amounts (column 2, line 67) by
spraying, brushing, or pouring (column 3, line 5).
The Examiner has taken the position that this established the prima facie case of
obviousness (Examiner’s answer, page 6, lines 11 et seq.), and we agree. The
Appellant, however, has pointed to unexpectedly superior results in the form of
enhanced resistance to loss of conductivity:
However, improved resistance to electrical degradation is shown to be a fact and
is disclosed in the application (Reply brief, page 3, lines 27 – 28).
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007