Appeal 2006-2692
Application 10/480,360
We find Hikmet would have disclosed filling the holes in the negative
electrode and the positive electrode, and optionally the separator with a
“polymeric material having a lower melting temperature than the material of
the separator” by subjecting a film of the polymeric material on at least one
side of the stack of the elements to heat and pressure, melting the polymeric
material so it penetrates the holes, thereby forming a kind of rivets bonding
the elements together as a laminate (Hikmet, e.g., 8:1-24). We find Hikmet
discloses no specific example of these embodiments. Hikmet further
discloses a specific example of a different embodiment wherein the holes of
the stack elements are aligned and the stack is placed on “polyethylene film
11” having a pattern of piles 12 which fit into the holes and project beyond
the stack, wherein heat and pressure is applied flattening the projecting piles
12 (id., e.g., 10:30 to 11:8 and Figs. 1A-C; see also 7:3-32). Hikmet
discloses a further embodiment without specific exemplification, in which
the separator element is made of a polymeric material that can be
“polyethylene filled with inorganic particles, such as silica or alumina,”
wherein heat and pressure is applied to the stack so that “a part of the
polymeric material [of the separator] penetrate into the holes” bounding the
stack element together (id., e.g., 8:25 to 9:6). We find Hikmet discloses that
in these methods, “porous polymeric material” can be used for “the polymer
films and separator through which ions are movable, e.g., porous
polyethylene,” which polymeric material is preferably “elastic” (id. 9:4-6).
On this record, the Examiner must submit evidence or scientific
explanation establishing that prima facie Hikmet would have inherently
described a polyethylene having the claimed melt flow index physical
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013