Appeal No. 2006-2101
Application No. 10/085,303
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flandrois in view of either
Harrison or Boryta.
Appellants have not set forth an argument that is
reasonably specific to any particular claim on appeal.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with
claim 1, and we will limit our consideration to the examiner's
rejections of claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete
agreement with the examiner's reasoned analysis and application
of the prior art, as well as his cogent disposition of the
arguments raised by appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the
examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections of
record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Sloop and Flandrois are silent
with respect to the amount of sodium present in their lithium
electrochemical cells. However, both Harrison and BorytaP
evidence that it was known in the art to utilize high purity
lithium in making lithium batteries by eliminating sodium as one
of the impurities. As set forth by the examiner, Harrison
teaches that high purity lithium components effectively prevent
undesirable reactions with sodium in applications such as
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007