Appeal No. 2005-2358
Application No. 10/071,664
Rather, the appellants take the position that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the
claimed subject matter because substantial evidence does not
support the examiner’s finding that Manev would have suggested
employing the claimed positive active material in its lithium
secondary battery. See the Brief, pages 7-9 and the Reply Brief,
pages 1-4. We will not subscribe to the appellants’ position.
As correctly found by the examiner (the Answer, page 4),
Manev teaches a positive electrode material containing a
multiple-doped lithium manganese metal oxide for secondary
lithium and lithium-ion cells. See the abstract and column 2,
lines 8-11. The examiner finds (the Answer, pages 5-6), and the
appellants do not dispute (the Brief, pages 7-9 and the Reply
Brief, pages 1-4), that Manev teaches at column 2, lines 55-61,
lithium manganese metal oxide
codoped with equivalent amounts of Co3+ and Ti4+ to form
a spinel material having a composition described by the
formula:
Li1+xMn2-x-2mCom3+ Tim4+O4+z
wherein X and m are molar parts with numbers between 0
and 0.2 and Z is a number between -0.1 and 0.2.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007