Appeal 2007-0420
Application 10/643,383
which is acknowledged by applicant, the motivation being to secure
the advantages of the Alexandres . . . method for such a cell.
The Examiner explains that (Answer, p. 4; emphasis added),
[i]n applying the approach of Alexandres . . . to these prior art cells, at
least two of the welding electrodes will necessarily be outside the
weld area because figure 3 of Alexandres . . . shows that all electrodes
are away from the center of the cell, thereby satisfying this feature of
the claim.
The road to the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness has a few
holes. We are stuck in the holes in the prima facie case of obviousness.
In Alexandres’ Figures 2 and 3, item 44 is a battery, 42 is a battery
cap, and 40 is a metal connector strip (Alexandres, col. 3, ll. 4-7). “Welds
66, 68 and 70 are sequentially formed to electrically bond the connector strip
40 to the battery cap 42” (Alexandres, col. 3, ll. 16-18). Alexandres refers to
welds 66, 68 and 70 as “weldment areas” (Alexandres, col. 3, ll. 21-29).
We do not readily see, and the Examiner has not adequately
explained, how the application of the welding process described by
Alexandres can be used to connect conventional batteries of the type shown
in Appellants' “Prior Art” Figures 1A, 1B, and 1A via a metal strap and
necessarily produce a battery pack with at least one cell having “a first
electrode on the strap outside the weld area” and “a second electrode on the
at least one cell outside the weld area” as Appellants' Claim 11 requires. We
recognize that it is possible for one skilled in the art to make a battery pack
made by the process Appellants claim in accordance with Alexandres’
teaching if one broadly interprets the phrase “a second electrode on the at
least one cell” in Appellants' Claim 11 as the Examiner broadly interprets
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013