Ex Parte Yang et al - Page 17

                Appeal 2007-1524                                                                              
                Application 09/770,725                                                                        
           1    cause problems in Takami’s electrodes.  The Examiner’s combination of                         
           2    references is not premised on the notion that Kurose’s materials would have                   
           3    transition metal dissolution characteristics identical to those of Takami’s                   
           4    materials.  Rather, it is based on the finding that one of ordinary skill in the              
           5    art would have had a reasonable expectation that water would be detrimental                   
           6    to Takami’s battery, as disclosed in Kurose and Watanabe, based on their                      
           7    structural similarities.  That Mn in LiMn2O4 has a higher dissolution rate                    
           8    than Ni in LiNiO2 does not negate this expectation.  As discussed                             
           9    previously, Applicants have not relied on any evidence indicating that one of                 
          10    ordinary skill in the art would not have expected that moisture would cause                   
          11    problems in the type of battery described in Takami.                                          
          12          Applicants further contend that while Kurose teaches lowering the                       
          13    water content in the positive electrode material to avoid a decrease in battery               
          14    charge/discharge capacity, an increase in internal resistance, and                            
          15    deterioration of preservation property, the reference does not quantify the                   
          16    amount of moisture that would be considered detrimental.  (See, e.g., Reply                   
          17    Br. 2 at 4.)  This argument is also unpersuasive.  Given that it was known in                 
          18    the art that moisture is undesirable, a person of ordinary skill in the art                   
          19    would have reduced the amount of moisture to the greatest extent, subject to                  
          20    cost considerations.  Applicants have not shown that such reduced levels of                   
          21    moisture would not have included the amounts indirectly recited in appealed                   
          22    claim 1.  Moreover, Watanabe explicitly discloses that the amount of                          
          23    moisture in each of the electrodes should be 50 ppm or less.                                  
          24          Applicants argue that Watanabe discloses drying at a temperature                        
          25    preferably in the range of 80 to 350°C to eliminate the moisture and then                     
          26    assembling the battery but that heating to more than 200°C “is not realistic”                 

                                                     17                                                       

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013