Appeal 2007-1524
Application 09/770,725
1 We affirm.
2
3 ISSUE
4 Have Applicants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
5 one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to reduce the
6 amount of moisture in Takami’s battery to the levels recited in appealed
7 claim 1 in view of Watanabe and Kurose, thus arriving at a battery
8 encompassed by appealed claim 1?
9
10 FINDINGS OF FACT
11 1. Applicants’ Specification states that the lithium manganese
12 oxide material may contain one or more other elements
13 including Si and Ni. (Specification 9:7-27.)
14 2. Thus, the term “lithium manganese oxide” recited in appealed
15 claim 1 reads on a Ni- and/or Si-containing manganese oxide.
16 3. Takami discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a
17 positive electrode, a negative electrode comprising a
18 carbonaceous material capable of absorbing and desorbing Li
19 ions, and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein the carbonaceous
20 material has a region of amorphous carbon structure and a
21 region of graphite structure and has a true density of 1.8 g/cm3
22 or more and a peak in powder X-ray diffraction corresponding
23 to not more than 0.340 nm in an interplanar spacing d002 derived
24 from (002) reflection. (Takami, 2:55-65.)
25 4. Takami also describes a cylindrical non-aqueous secondary
26 battery in which an electrode assembly 3 is constructed such
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013