Appeal 2007-1024
Application 10/231,144
The Examiner has set forth four (4) prior art rejections. The rejections
are as follows:
i. Claims 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Japanese Publication No. 11-283628
(“Tomiyama”).
ii. Claims 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tomiyama in view of Cintra, U.S. Pat. Pub.
2003/124422 (“Cintra”).
iii. Claims 10 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tomiyama in view of Ward, U.S. Pat.
6,197,445 (“Ward”).
iv. Claims 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ono, U.S. Pat. 6,001,507 (“Ono”) in view of
Cintra.
There are two issues in dispute. Specifically, Applicant and the
Examiner dispute whether the prior art inherently possesses the required
binder contact angles. Applicant and the Examiner also dispute whether the
prior art inherently possesses conductive agent agglomerated particles
having a size of less than 10 μm.
Based upon the record presented, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art
rejections involving Tomiyama. As all appealed claims are unpatentable
over the teachings Tomiyama, alone or in combination with the prior art, we
need not reach the Examiner’s rejection based upon the combined teachings
of Ono and Cintra.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Applicant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims. Specifically, the issues are:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013