Appeal No. 2004-1908 Application No. 09/176,374 Page 8 bending the electrodes, it is our view that the examiner has not fairly explained why the teachings of Takeuchi in combination with Machida would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the examiner’s proposed modification, on this record. From our perspective, the particularly identified teachings of Takeuchi regarding the use of a flat sided mandrel and the formation of a prismatic shaped cell, while obviously applicable to the cell of Takeuchi, have not been shown by the examiner as suggesting a modification of Machida’s specific cell or method of making same in a manner so as to arrive at the here claimed subject matter. Moreover, the examiner has not fairly addressed the specifics of each of appellant’s claims and each of the applied references in explaining how the teachings of Takeuchi would have suggested particular modification(s) of Machida in a manner so as result in appellant’s claimed subject matter with a reasonable expectation of success in so doing. For example, appellant’s claim 1 requires a method wherein the longer electrode is first folded on itself about a substantially rectangular cross-section mandrel having opposing surfaces so that a separator on the longer electrode contacts both of the oppositely facing surfaces of the mandrel. Even ifPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007