Appeal 2007-1024
Application 10/231,144
The Examiner does not state what the contact angle is for Ono’s
polyimide and non-aqueous electrolyte. We sympathize with the
Examiner. We are not aware of a standardized textbook that provides
a detailed listing of the contact angles for polyimide.
Applicant’s brief does not state what the contact angle is for
Ono’s polyimide and non-aqueous electrolyte. Applicant’s brief does
not deny that Ono’s polyimide possesses the requisite contact angle to
achieve the claimed θB – θA ≥ 15o. Rather, Applicant’s brief states
that Ono fails to render obvious the selection of particular pairs of
binders from among all possible binders on the basis of their contact
angles. (Appeal Br. 15).
We need not, and do not, make any finding with respect to
contact angle between Ono’s polyimide and non-aqueous electrolyte.
Specifically, in light of our decision that all of Applicant’s appealed
claims are unpatentable over Tomiyama, alone or in combination with
the cited prior art, we conclude that the Examiner’s rejection of the
appealed claims over the teachings of Ono and Cintra is moot.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons given, it is:
Ordered that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tomiyama or in the
alternative, obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tomiyama is
AFFIRMED.
Ordered that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-17 under
19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013