Appeal 2007-1524
Application 09/770,725
1 The Examiner’s position is that although Takami does not teach the
2 cumulative concentration of water released from the electrodes when
3 subjected to the specified conditions as recited in appealed claim 1, the prior
4 art teachings as a whole would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
5 reduce the amount of the moisture in the electrodes in order to avoid the
6 known problems associated with moisture. (Answer 4-5.)
7 Applicants, on the other hand, contend that the claimed subject matter
8 would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over
9 the combined teachings of Takami, Watanabe, and Kurose because
10 Watanabe and Kurose disclose electrode materials different from those
11 described in Takami and thus their teachings with respect to avoidance of
12 moisture have not been shown to be applicable to Takami’s batteries.
13 (Appeal Brief filed November 14, 2005, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” at 12;
14 First Reply Brief filed on February 21, 2006, hereinafter “Reply Br. 1,” at 2-
15 4; Second Reply Brief filed October 19, 2006, hereinafter “Reply Br. 2,” at
16 2-3, 5-6.) Applicants further contend that while Kurose teaches lowering the
17 water content in the positive electrode material to avoid a decrease in battery
18 charge/discharge capacity, an increase in internal resistance, and
19 deterioration of preservation property, the reference does not quantify the
20 amount of moisture that would be considered detrimental. (See, e.g., Reply
21 Br. 2 at 4.) Applicants also urge that Watanabe discloses drying at a
22 temperature preferably in the range of 80 to 350°C to eliminate the moisture
23 and then assembling the battery but that heating to more than 200°C “is not
24 realistic” because the “binder contained in the electrode would normally be
25 decomposed or would deteriorate at such temperatures.” (Appeal Br. 12-
26 13.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013