Appeal 2007-2659
Application 09/940,541
Appellants contend that each of claims 1-8 expressly requires that the
tensile elongation of the battery container covering is selected such that the
high polymer sheet provides insulation between the positive and negative
electrodes of the battery when the container is deformed, and the Examiner
has failed to demonstrate that the prior art teaches this aspect (Br. 5; Reply
Br. 1-2). Appellants further contend that the outer covering layer of JP ‘564
is adhered or laminated to the battery container, and thus this reference
shows that the covering does not move into the battery to shield the
electrodes when the container is pierced by a needle (Br. 4). Appellants
contend that “covered” in the present claims must be construed as meaning
that the high polymer sheet is not laminated or adhered to the container (Br.
5-6).
The Examiner contends that “covering” should be construed as a
separate sheet or a laminated sheet, as understood in light of the
Specification, and is not limited to specific embodiments (Answer 6-7).
Accordingly, the issue presented in this appeal is as follows: Has the
Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the
proper construction of the claim language?
We determine that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence in light of our claim
construction as set forth below. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the
Brief, Reply Brief, and set forth below, we REVERSE the sole ground of
rejection presented in this appeal.
OPINION
Implicit in our review of the Examiner’s obviousness analysis is that
the claim must first have been correctly construed to define the scope and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013