Appeal 2007-3426
Application 10/400,954
the grounds of rejection and Appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend LaFollette does not meet
the limitation “the micro-battery stores energy proportional to thickness of
the micro-battery,” that is, by “extending the thickness of the battery (in the
Z dimension), significantly more energy can be stored while maintaining the
surface area in the battery (in the X and Y dimension)” (Br. 4). Appellants
contend LaFollette “discusses energy capacities relating to the area
according to the X and Y dimensions of the battery” and not “the thickness
(i.e., the Z dimension)” (id.; see also Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants contend
LaFollette’s disclosure of a footprint of 1 mm2 to 1 µm2 and a volume of
1 mm3 to 1 µm3 is not “a measurement of energy proportional to thickness of
the micro-battery” but “roughly illustrates the size of the device” (id., citing
LaFollette “e.g., col. 18, ll. 21-25”).
With respect to claim 9, Appellants contend soft lithography “is a
unique non-photolithographic technique that enables the creation of three-
dimensional structures and that generates patterns on non-planar surfaces”
and is not described by LaFollette (Br. 5, citing Specification ¶ 0033).
Appellants contend the reference discloses “lithographic processes
consistent with the described microscopic battery, namely photolithography”
which “is not expressly or inherently the same as soft lithography” (id.,
citing LaFollette col. 21, ll. 28-32). Appellants contend “the elastomer block
used in soft lithography (instead of a rigid photomask as used in traditional
lithographic processing) enables the creation of three-dimensional structures
and the generation of patterns on non-planar surfaces” (id.).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013