Appeal 2006-3027
Application 10/369,706
reasonable expectation of success. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493,
20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Obviousness does not require
absolute predictability; all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success. See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. We determine that Maruta discloses every
limitation of claim 1 on appeal except the presence of a second coating layer
on the active material loaded into a porous sintered nickel substrate (see
factual finding (1) listed above). We determine that Kimiya teaches that
both porous sintered nickel substrates and foamed nickel substrates have
been known for use as the positive electrode in alkaline storage batteries,
both substrates have problems with low conductivity, and these problems
have been solved for both substrates by the incorporation of metallic
elements (see factual findings (3) and (4) listed above). We also determine
that Kimiya teaches that forming a layer of Co oxide on the active material
has been suggested to improve conductivity, which is the same improvement
suggested by Maruta for porous sintered nickel substrates (see factual
findings (1) and (5) listed above). Accordingly, we determine that the
reference evidence establishes that one of ordinary skill in this art would
have reasonably expected achieving the beneficial results of Kimiya by
applying the teachings of Kimiya to the porous sintered nickel substrate of
Maruta (see factual findings (2) and (6) listed above).
We determine that the reference evidence establishes that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have used the surface layer taught by Kimiya
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013