Appeal No. 2005-0178
Application No. 10/091,502
of Honbo.
IV. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,558,846 in view of Honbo.
We have carefully considered appellants’ brief and reply
brief2, and the examiner’s answer. This review has led us to
conclude that the examiner’s rejections are not well-founded.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection over Kuruma in view of Honbo,
and each of the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type patenting rejections3
On page 5 of the answer, the examiner recognizes that
Kuruma4 does not disclose the specific negative electrode density
as claimed in appellants’ claim 1. The examiner relies upon
Honbo for teaching a negative electrode density that falls within
the range claimed by appellants.
Appellants’ position with regard to this rejection is set
forth on pages 3-12 of the brief (appellants reiterate certain
points made, in the reply brief). On page 6 of the brief,
appellants argue that Honbo is directed to a complex oxide
containing Li and Mn, which has a spinel type crystalline
structure, and refer to column 2, lines 38-40 of Honbo.
2 We have reviewed all of the reply briefs of record. Any referral to
the reply brief in this decision is a reference to the reply brief
filed on July 26, 2004.
3 These 3 rejections involve the same issue (whether Honbo is properly
combinable with each of the primary references in each respective
rejection).
4 The examiner also recognizes that each of the Tsushima patents does
not disclose the claimed negative electrode density. Answer, pages 10
and 12.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007