Appeal No. 2002-0262
Application No. 09/127,785
The examiner states that Figure 1B shows a battery having a
space between the bottom of the container and the electrode lower
end wherein the separator (5) has an extension. (Examiner’s
Answer, page 5, lines 1-3). However, this statement, without
more, is insufficient to meet the examiner’s burden to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.
If the examiner is referring to nylon frame body 22 (column
6, line 68), this open space contains a redox catalyst at the
upper part of the electrode stack. If the examiner is, on the
other hand, implying that there is a space in the vicinity of
negative electrode lead 8 at the bottom of Figure 1B, we observe
that the claim requires that the separator extend from the base of
the electrode package into the space. Positive electrode 4,
separator 5 and negative electrode 6 all appear to meet the bottom
of the container, albeit in a rounded format with a fold for the
negative electrode. We do not see the separator extending beyond
the base of the electrode package into a space containing excess
electrolyte.
We note that the examiner, in the Answer, page 7, last full
paragraph, admits that the references do not explicitly state that
the space is between the base of the electrode package and the
container, stating that it “may be an implicit teaching.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007