Appeal No. 2001-0319
Application 09/005,841
Appellants argue that the examiner's assertion that Ahmad's
statement about "a porous electrode coating which may be of the
same or different composition on each side of the support
material" (col. 5, approx. lines 38-40) teaches a capacitor
having a cathode and anode with respective different metal oxide
coatings is not supported (Br12). It is argued that all of the
examples in Ahmad have symmetrical structures (Br12). It is
argued that none of the specific capacitor structures described
in Ahmad has an asymmetrical structure with different oxide
coatings on the cathode and anode, which, together with the low
breakdown voltage of about 1 volt, demonstrates that these
capacitors are entirely conventional and symmetrical
electrochemical capacitors (Br12).
We do not find where the examiner addresses these particular
arguments, but we assume that the examiner's position is that
Ahmad's statement that "a porous electrode coating which may be
of the same or different composition on each side of the support
material" (col. 5, lines 38-40) teaches that the cathode and
anode oxide coatings can be different even if there are no
express examples.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007