Appeal 2007- 3662
Application 09/997,604
the metal substituted lithium manganese oxide Appellants exemplify in the
Specification. The evidence tends to show that no more than routine
experimentation was required of one of ordinary skill in the art of lithium
secondary battery production, and the Examiner has not sufficiently rebutted
that evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
We sustain the rejection of claims 11-14, 16-21, 23, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), but we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11-14, 16-21,
23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
IV. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013