Appeal 2007-3426
Application 10/400,954
Claims 1, 2, and 9 illustrate Appellants’ invention of a volumetric
lithium-ion energy storage device, and are representative of the claims on
appeal:
1. A volumetric lithium-ion energy storage device, comprising:
an anode;
a cathode; and
an electrolyte separator interstitial to and in communication with the
anode and the cathode, which anode, cathode and electrolyte separator form
a micro-battery having a volume of no more than one cubic millimeter, the
micro-battery stores energy proportional to thickness of the micro-battery.
2. The device of claim 1, the electrolyte separator is approximately
one millimeter.
9. The energy storage device of claim 1 manufactured according to
soft lithography techniques.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Nathan US 6,197,450 B1 Mar. 6, 2001
LaFollette US 6,610,440 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal (Br. 3):
claims 1, 3, and 9 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
LaFollette (Answer 3);
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over LaFollette (id. 3-4);
claims 4 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over LaFollette
in view of Nathan (id. 4-5).
Appellants argue claims 1 and 14 as a group and claim 9 separately as
representative of the claims in the first ground of rejection (Br. 4 and 5).
Appellants do not argue the third ground of rejection with specificity (Br. 7).
Thus, we decide this appeal based on claims 1, 2, and 9 as representative of
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013