Appeal 2007-3426
Application 10/400,954
a modification, adaptation and/or variation of prior non-battery
technologies” that are “to a large extent adaptations from IC fabrication
techniques” (id., e.g., col. 20, ll. 24-27, and col. 21, ll. 28-33). LaFollette
discloses microbattery component fabrication “involves the lithographic
application of superimposed layers carried by a substrate” which can be
formed of, among other things, a flexible material (id., e.g., col. 20, l. 28, to
col. 21, l. 55; col. 9, l. 65, to col. 10, l. 7, and col. 12, l. 39, to col. 14, l. 4,
and col. 24, ll. 36-49).
Appellants acknowledge soft lithography was known in the art
(Specification, e.g., ¶¶ 0006-0007). Appellants disclose that in using this
technique, a mold is formed and the component layers are sequentially
superimposed (id. , e.g., ¶¶ 0061-0062, and Fig. 10).
On this record, Appellants’ arguments do not convince us that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation and of
obviousness. With respect to claim 1, as we have interpreted this claim
above, we determine LaFollette’s microbatteries have a volume range that is
the same as the specified volume range for the claimed microbatteries, and
both the claimed and prior art microbatteries have the same components and
can be formed in any manner. The area of LaFollette’s microbatteries is not
excluded by any limitation in claim 1. Thus, the properties of the claimed
microbatteries and those described by LaFollette would be the same,
including the storage of “energy proportional to thickness of the
microbattery.” In this respect, we take notice, as does the Examiner, that an
increase in a dimension of a battery, including the “z-dimension” or
designated “height” of the battery, would reasonably be expected by one of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013