Appeal 2007-1524
Application 09/770,725
1 electrode to the greatest extent possible, e.g., 50 ppm as disclosed in
2 Watanabe.
3 When the moisture contents of Takami’s negative and positive
4 electrodes are modified in the manner discussed above, one of ordinary skill
5 in the art would have arrived at a lithium secondary battery encompassed by
6 appealed claim 1. Having determined that the Examiner has established a
7 prima facie case of obviousness, we consider the Applicants’ relied upon
8 arguments and evidence in rebuttal.
9 Applicants urge that the claimed subject matter would not have been
10 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over the combined
11 teachings of Takami, Watanabe, and Kurose because Watanabe and Kurose
12 disclose electrode materials different from those described in Takami and
13 thus their teachings with respect to avoidance of moisture have not been
14 shown to be applicable to Takami’s batteries. (Appeal Br. at 12; Reply Br.
15 1, at 2-4; Reply Br. 2 at 2-3, 5-6.)
16 We find this contention to be without merit. The lithium oxides
17 described as useful in Kurose (nickel-containing lithium composite oxide
18 having the formula LixNiyMzO2 where M may be Mn) are structurally
19 similar to those described in Takami (LiNiO2, LiMn2O4, or LiMnO2).
20 Likewise, Watanabe’s lithium-containing titanium oxides, which may
21 additionally contain Mn or Ni, are also similar. Thus, one of ordinary skill
22 in the art would have reasonably predicted or had a reasonable expectation
23 that Takami’s lithium oxide would also absorb moisture and suffer from the
24 same or similar problems discussed in Kurose and Watanabe.
25 From the collective teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in
26 the art would have understood the general problems associated with the
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013