Appeal 2007-3426
Application 10/400,954
With respect to claim 2, Appellants contend LaFollette discloses
photolithography techniques and thus, would not teach or suggest an
electrolyte separator approximately one millimeter thick because “such
thickness is not supported by photolithography” (Br. 6-7). Appellants again
point out “photolithography is not expressly or inherently the same as soft
lithography” (Reply Br. 4).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds LaFollette discloses a
microbattery with a volume of no more than 1 mm3 (Answer 3). The
Examiner contends “it is inherent that a microbattery has a certain thickness
and will store energy that is proportional to the thickness of the microbattery
due to the increase in the active material of the battery” (id. 5). With respect
to claim 9, the Examiner contends “there is no evidence that the lithographic
processes taught by LaFollette cannot be used to manufacture a microbattery
with a volume of up to 1 cubic millimeter” (id.). With respect to claim 2, the
Examiner determines that LaFollette does not disclose an electrolyte
separator that is approximately 1 millimeter thick, and determines that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have used any appropriate size (id. 3-4). The
Examiner contends “there is no evidence that the lithographic processes
taught by LaFollette cannot be used to manufacture electrolyte separators of
approximately one millimeter thick” (id. 6).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to
claims 1 and 9 and of obviousness with respect to claim 2.
The plain language of independent claim 1 specifies a volumetric
lithium-ion energy storage device comprising at least any manner of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013