Appeal No. 2005-2358
Application No. 10/071,664
any explanation, as to why this limited showing is sufficient to
support, for example, the multifarious positive electrodes made
of materially different amounts of the lithium and manganese
components and materially different additional components
included in the claims on appeal. This is especially true in
this case since the appellants’ own specification indicates that
the amounts of lithium and manganese components used, as well as
the presence or absence of other components, affect the internal
resistance ratios of the claimed lithium secondary batteries.
See the examples at pages 22 through 29 of the specification.
Thus, it cannot be said that the appellants have carried their
burden of showing that the claimed subject matter as a whole
imparts unexpected results, thereby rebutting the prima facie
case established by the examiner.
Based on the totality of record, including due consideration
of the appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of Section 103(a). Accordingly,
we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 11 through
13, 15, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Manev and Biensan.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007