Ex Parte SENOO et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-1806                                                        
          Application No. 09/162,992                                                  

          number average molecular weight ranging from 5000 to 500000                 
          wherein the non-aqueous solvent at least includes propylene                 
          carbonate in an amount ranging from 10 mol% to 75 mol% and                  
          ethylene carbonate.                                                         
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Ozaki et al. (Ozaki)         5,522,127              Jun.  4, 1996           
          Akashi                       EP 0 724 305           Jul. 31, 1996           
          (European Patent Application)                                               
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a gel                     
          electrolyte secondary cell comprising a positive electrode, a               
          negative electrode and a gel electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous           
          solvent that includes propylene carbonate.  The negative                    
          electrode comprises a powder mixture including a graphitized                
          carbonaceous material obtained from meso-carbon micro-beads.                
               Claims 2-4, 6-9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                  
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akashi in view of Ozaki.                
               Appellants submit at page 4 of the principal brief that they           
          "do not argue for the separate patentability of each of the                 
          dependent claims separate and apart from the independent claim."            
          Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with            
          claim 12.                                                                   
               We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments              
          for patentability.  However, we are in complete agreement with              
          the examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior               
                                         -2-                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007