Appeal No. 2001-0789 3
Application No. 09/106,625
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Canada ‘697, further
in view of Bennett and further in view of Mototani.
Claims 8 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schneider in view of Canada ‘697, further in view of Bennett and further in view of
Mototani and further in view of Junkers.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner and agree with the appellant that the rejection of the claims under §103(a) is
not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
The Rejection under § 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." See in re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
It is the examiner’s position that, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply two layers of material over the
plated surface of Schneider et al. because Bennett teaches that a plurality of layers of
electrically conductive material reduces interfacial resistance between the surfaces and
improves distribution of current and thus efficiency of the battery.” See Answer, pages 5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007