Appeal 2007-1524
Application 09/770,725
1 lithium transition metal compound oxide, and to clarify the
2 difference in the respective amounts of transition metal
3 dissolved into electrolyte solution between lithium nickel oxide
4 and lithium manganese oxide.” (Declaration 2.)
5 26. Applicants do not rely on any evidence to demonstrate that
6 variations in the composition of the lithium oxide positive
7 electrode material significantly affect absorption and release of
8 water (i.e., that the variations in the composition of the lithium
9 oxide positive electrode material are critical to whether water
10 detrimentally affects the characteristics of the battery).
11 27. Applicants do not assert, much less rely on evidence to show,
12 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected that
13 moisture would cause problems in the type of battery described
14 in Takami.
15
16 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
17 The factual inquiry into whether claimed subject matter would have
18 been obvious includes a determination of: (1) the scope and content of the
19 prior art; (2) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior
20 art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration
21 (e.g., the problem solved) that may be indicia of (non)obviousness. Graham
22 v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). The Supreme
23 Court of the United States has stated that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot
24 be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion,
25 and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles
26 and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013