Appeal 2007-1118
Application 10/237,089
Specification except that silicon powder was used instead of SiOx powder.
Comparison data for this example and the examples presented in the
Specification is provided in Table 1. The first charge and discharge
capacities of the comparison example are higher than those of Appellants’
Example 2, but the capacity retentivity after 30 cycles is lower (45% versus
98%).
The Fukuoka II Declaration provides data for a lithium ion secondary
battery cell constructed and tested as in Appellants’ Example 2 except that
silicon powder made according to Umeno’s Example 1 was used. Again, the
first charge and discharge capacities of the comparison are higher than those
of Appellants’ Example 2, but the capacity retentivity after 30 cycles is
lower (44%).
C. Analysis
We focus first on the question of whether Appellants have overcome
the rejection by showing that the evidence is insufficient to support the
Examiner’s case of obviousness. Appellants’ contention in this regard is
that there is no suggestion of using the SiOx particles of Sakashita with the
chemical vapor deposited carbon coating of Umeno because Umeno
expressly defines the range of useful core materials as limited to metals and
semimetals, of which SiOx (x=1.05-1.60) is not.
Appellants’ argument is insufficient to rebut the Examiner prima facie
case of obviousness for the following reasons.
First, Appellants do not convincingly address the Examiner’s finding
that Umeno’s suggested materials have the same function as Sakashita’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013