Appeal No. 2006-0832 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/155,253
very thin electrode layers desired by Parker; that is, particles
of size range, such as less than the here claimed 0.5 micron with
a reasonable expectation of achieving a useful flexible battery
having the desired slim profile and appropriate electrical
properties.
Given the above and for the reasons well-stated by the
examiner in the answer, appellant’s arguments suggesting a lack
of motivation and improper use of hindsight by the examiner are
without persuasive effect. Parker clearly is not limited to the
maximum layer thicknesses and associated maximum sized particles
of active materials that can possibly be used in forming the
electrode layers of the battery, as appellant’s arguments (brief,
pages 9-18) would have us accept.
In addition, appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply
brief suggesting that Schubert teaches away from the examiner’s
proposed combination with Parker are clearly without merit in
terms of showing reversible error in the examiner’s rejection.
As to the specific question of "teaching away," our
reviewing court in In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d
1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994) stated:
[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person
of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007