Appeal 2007-1024
Application 10/231,144
reasons discussed above with respect to Tomiyama, and further in
view of the teachings of Cintra, we conclude that Applicant’s claims
12-17 are obvious over the prior art.
3. The Rejection of Claims 10 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
Obvious over Tomiyama in view of Ward
Applicant claim 10 depends from claim 17 and further requires that
the agglomerated particles have a bulk density of not less than 0.1 g/ml and
not more than 0.5 g/ml. (Appeal Br. Claims Appendix, claim 10).
Ward describes air depolarized electrochemical cells. (Ward,
Abstract). Ward teaches using carbon black catalyst having a density of
0.47 g/ml and the reduction of agglomerated particle size. (Id. at col. 16, ll.
1-20 and col. 17, ll. 40-50).
The Examiner states that Tomiyama is silent as to the bulk density of
its agglomerated conductive agent particles. The Examiner finds that one
skilled in the art would have modified Tomiyama to achieve the density
described by Ward “to increase the reaction sites in the electrode material
and create a completely homogeneous mixture.” (Answer 7-8). Applicant
disagrees.
Applicant contends that Ward and Tomiyama are directed to distinct
batteries as Ward is directed to an air battery and Tomiyama is directed to a
non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery. (Reply Br. 4). In particular,
Applicant states that air batteries are primary batteries and not rechargeable
(secondary) batteries. Applicant contends that different reactions occur at
the positive electrode of Ward and Tomiyama and thus the two references
describe different electrochemical characteristics. (Id.).
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013