Appeal No. 2006-0832 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/155,253
material for the cathode. As such, appellant’s teaching away
contention is lacking in merit.
We disagree with appellant’s speculation that the proposed
modification of Parker would destroy the intended function of
Schubert by preventing the formation of thin battery electrode
layers. The paragraph 0062 passage of Schubert referred to by
appellant indicates that thicker electrodes may be required for
some battery applications using jet-milled EMD as cathode
material. Such a disclosure is hardly proof that the non-EMD
cathode materials of Parker could not be made thin if small
particles of cathode material, such as the zinc disclosed by
Parker, were employed in making the cathode.
Consequently, on this record, appellants have not persuaded
us of any error in the strong prima facie case of obviousness
presented by the examiner based on the arguments furnished in the
briefs. It follows that we shall sustain the examiner’s
obviousness rejection of the appealed claims before us.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-9 and 16-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parker in
view of Schubert is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007