Appeal No. 2005-2358
Application No. 10/071,664
e.g., the Reply Brief, pages 4-5 and the declaration, page 3.
Having reviewed the showing in the Takahashi declaration and the
specification, we determine that the appellants have not
demonstrated that the claimed subject matter as a whole imparts
unexpected results. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ
14, 16 (CCPA 1972)(The appellants have the burden of showing that
the claimed subject matter imparts unexpected results.); In re
Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228, 149 USPQ 692, 697 (CCPA 1966)(“It is
incumbent upon appellants to submit clear and convincing evidence
to support their allegation of unexpected property.”).
As correctly pointed out by the examiner (the Answer, page
12), “the objective evidence of nonobviousness is not
commensurate in scope with the instant claims...” The coin cells
supposedly representative of the claimed invention referred to in
the Takahashi declaration and the specification are limited to
employing a positive electrode made of specific amounts of
lithium and manganese components and specific amounts of
acetylene black powder and polyvinylidene fluoride under a
pressure of 300 kg/cm2 and an electrolyte formed of dissolved
LiPF6 in a specific organic solvent. Although these exemplified
coin cells appear to show some improvement in internal resistance
ratios, the appellants have not provided any evidence, much less
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007