Appeal No. 1998-2190
Application No. 08/593,266
since obviousness is tested by what the combined disclosures of the
references teach, not the failings of the individual references.
See In re Keller, supra.
Appellants’ argument that Lee does not disclose or suggest the
suppression of gas generation due to corrosion of the battery
during storage is not well taken (Brief, page 23). Again, we note
that Lee was not cited for this feature (see the Answer, page 5).
Appellants also argue the limitation of claims 58, 65, 68 and 72,
that the positive electrode has an active material selected from
silver oxide and manganese dioxide (Brief, page 24). However, this
limitation is clearly disclosed by Tada (see col. 4, ll. 5-7). The
use of KOH or NaOH as the electrolyte, as recited in claims 67 and
71 (Brief, page 24) is also taught by Tada (see col. 4, ll. 8-12).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the subject
matter of the second embodiment as recited in claims 54-56, 58, 66-
68, 73, 74, and 78-80.
For the first time in the Reply Brief (pages 12-13),
appellants submit that any prima facie case of obviousness has been
rebutted by a showing of unexpected superior properties. However,
appellants have not met their burden of explaining why the
comparative tests are considered to be with the closest prior art,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007