Appeal No. 2005-1806
Application No. 09/162,992
art, as well as the examiner's cogent and thorough disposition of
the arguments raised by appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt
the examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejection
of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Akashi, like appellants, discloses
a gel electrolyte secondary cell comprising positive and negative
electrodes and a gel electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous solvent
that includes propylene carbonate. As acknowledged by the
examiner, Akashi does not expressly teach that the carbonaceous
material for the negative electrode is obtained from meso-carbon
micro-beads. However, Ozaki evidences that it was known in the
art to use such mesophase graphite particles in the negative
electrode of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cell.
Accordingly, we fully concur with the examiner's conclusion that
it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to use meso-carbon micro-beads for the negative electrode in
Akashi for the advantage taught by Ozaki, namely, smooth
intercalating of lithium at charging over a wide temperature
range resulting in an increased cell capacity (see Ozaki at
column 3, lines 12-14). We agree with the examiner that "[o]ne
of skill would be motivated to use the graphite negative
electrode of Ozaki as the graphite negative electrode of Akashi
because both materials are capable of occluding lithium and the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007