Appeal No. 2005-2358
Application No. 10/071,664
REJECTION
Claims 1, 11 through 13, 15, 17 and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Manev and Biensan.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the evidence and arguments advanced
by both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
the examiner’s Section 103 rejection is well founded.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s Section 103 rejection. Our
reasons for this determination follow.
We initially note that the appellants do not dispute the
examiner’s determination that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
at the time of the invention was made to use the
specific carbon negative active material of Biensan et
al in the lithium secondary battery of Maneve et al
because Biensan et al teach that a negative electrode
comprising an electrochemically active material such as
carbon is suitable for use in lithium rechargeable
cells [and] because [the] carbon material can
reversibly intercalate lithium ions into its structure.
(Compare the Answer, page 7, with the Brief and the
Reply Brief in their entirety.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007