Appeal 2007-0420
Application 10/643,383
one cell at a point outside the “weld area”. Thus, both the first and second
electrodes must be disposed outside of the weld area. Current flows between
the first and second electrodes.
Appellants' specification cautions that the “weld area . . . may be
sensitive to exterior pressure, heat, and electrical current” (Specification,
p. 1, last line). Referring to “Prior Art” Figures 1A, 1B and 1C, the
specification teaches that “[c]urrent is passed through strap electrode 16S,
strap 13 and out the cell 11 into cell electrode 16C, resulting in heat and
finally welding” (id., p. 2, ll. 4-5). According to Appellants' specification
(id., p. 2, ll. 6-7):
[t]his is problematic because cell electrode 16C partially or
completely contacts weld area 11W of cell 11. This welding process
may result in early cell failure.
Appellants dispose all electrodes of the two cells of a battery pack
manufactured in accordance with Appellants’ claimed method outside the
“weld area” so as to prevent degradation related to the prior art positioning
inside the weld area.
The PTO has the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The PTO can satisfy this
burden by showing some objective teaching in the art or prior knowledge in
the art which would have lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the invention
claimed. In re Fine, 837 F.2d at 1075, 5 USPQ2d at 1599. However, the
PTO ever must be cautious not “[t]o imbue one of ordinary skill in the art
with knowledge of the invention in suit . . . when no prior art reference or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013