1.

The examination of the present search case has been carried out on the set of 21 claims , the pages 1-28 of the description and figures 1-4 originally filed .

2. CLARITY (ARTICLE 84 EPC) 2.1 The presence of the terms 0y in the wordings of the independent claims 1 and 11 renders the claimed subject-matter in breach with the requirements of clarity of Rule 43(2) since it eliminates from the claimed cathode the presence of fluorine ions which is not supported by the application documents originally filed since they always refer (see examples 1-5) exclusively to compounds containing the cited fluorine ions. The terms about must be deleted from the wordings of the independent claims and the respective counterparts of the description when concerning ranges of values for the sake of clarity of Article 84 EPC. The names of the metals Al (Mg and Co) forming part of the metal fluorides and respectively of the metal phosphates as well as the relative composition (weight %) of the cited layers must be introduced into the wordings of the independents claims 1 and 11 for the sake of clarity of Rule 43(2) and Article 84 EPC.

2.2 The wording of independent method claim 11 is in breach with the requirements of clarity of Rule 43(2) and respectively Article 84 EPC since it does not contain any single technical feature of the claimed method, merely repeats the desired result to be achieved concerning the production of a AlF3 layer and respectively a AlPO4 layer without indicating the method features (impregnating the composition of formula in the wording of the claim with an aluminum fluoride solution, drying and impregnating the obtained composition with a solution of ammonium phosphate) essential for obtaining the cited layers. Additionally, the presence of the terms coating a layer with a metal phosphide" at the last line of the independent claim 11 renders it in breach with the requirements of clarity of Rule 43(2) and Article 84 EPC since the entire application documents concern coating with "a metal phosphate" and not a "metal phosphide" which is (metal phosphide) only erroneously cited at claim 11 and page 17, lines 5-6.

2.3 In the absence of all essential technical features of the claimed cathode and respectively method in the wordings of the independent claims 1 and 11 the clarity of the claimed-subject matter cannot be acknowledged (Rule 43(2) and Article 84 EPC).

3. NOVELTY (ARTICLE 54 EPC) The absence of relative composition of each of the layers in the wordings of the independent claim 1 and 11 makes that the claimed subject-matter also encompasses monomolecular layers of each of AlF3 and AlPO4, wherein is impossible to detect where does the AlF3 coating layer starts and what is the start point of the AlPO4 layer or whether or not they are merely only one layer having a thickness identical to one of the molecules of either AlF3 or AlPO4. This comment also applies for low thickness layers such as those implying as low as 0.5-2.0 wt% of AlF3 coating layer based on the weight of the cathode active material as defined in the wording of dependent claim 5 presently on file.

Reference is made to the following document: US 2006/083991 A1 (AHN SOON H [KR] ET AL AHN SOON HO [KR] ET AL) 20 April 2006 (2006-04-20)

D1

D1 (see in particular paragraphs 0029 and 0038) concerns multinary oxide coating layers comprising a compound represented by th formula Al 1-nPXbO4-b wherein is a halogen element, 0<a<1 and 0<1. The coating layers are applied to LiNiO2, LiMnO2, .......LiNixCoyMn1-x-y O2 (0<x 0.5; 0<y 0.5) or mixtures thereof which are used as battery cathodes; D1 (see paragraphs 0049-0052) also discloses a battery comprising the coated cathodes. The claimed subject-matters (see cathode claim 1 and battery claim 20) differ from the disclosure of D1 merely due to the fact that a " metal fluoride" is explicitly cited in the wording of independent claim 1 instead of the more broader term " metal halogen" explicitly cited in D1.

The claimed subject-matter (independent claims 1 and 20) do meet therefore the requirements of novelty of Article 54(2) EPC.

3.2 PRODUCT CLAIMS (CLAIMS 25-28) Although D1 explicitly refers to the use mixtures of metals including Fe, Co, Mn, Cu, V and Cr (see col 6, lines 3-6) and more preferably of mixtures of Fe and Co (see col. 5, line 6) as well as additional transition metals including zirconium among them (see in particular col. 5, line 60 to col. 6, line 1 more precisely col. 5, line 63) and respectively to the use of silicate substituted phosphate components there is not any single example therein forming part of the compositions prepared in the examples of D1 comprising both elements a Co (valency +4(*)) and SiO4 simultaneously with the rest of elements Li:F:P and carbon explicitly disclosed in the wording of independent claim 25 presently on file. (*) It is well known that cobalt can take all the following values for its valencies 1,+1,+2,+3,+4,+5 (see Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 11171119. ISBN 0080379419) and consequently it is evident that it (Co) falls within the definition of the compound M in the wording of independent claim 1 presently on file. Therefore, the subject-matter of D1 cannot be considered prejudicial for the novelty of the subject-matter of independent claim 35 presently on file.

4. INVENTIVE STEP (ARTICLE 56 EPC) 4.1 The analysis of inventive step before the EPO must follow the problem solution approach of the guidelines (G-VII,5 and ff) which requires that the evidence be provided that a technical problem has effectively been solved in a non obvious way as the consequence of a differentiating technical feature present in the wording of all independent claims. In particular, the attention of the applicants is drawn to the fact that "Features which cannot be seen to make any contribution, either independently or in combination with other features, to the technical character of an invention are not relevant for assessing inventive step" and respectively to the fact that "A technical problem may be regarded as being solved only if it is

credible that substantially all claimed embodiments exhibit the technical effects upon which the invention is based" (see G-VII,5.2).

4.2 The absence of a differentiating technical feature (see point 3.1) in view of D1 does not allow starting the reasoning according to t he problem solution approach of the guidelines impeaching therefore any argument concerning the inventive step of the claimed subjectmatter concerning the claimed process of independent claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-23 and 29-32).

4.2 The differentiating technical feature in the wording of independent claims 25-28 does not seem to help overcoming a technical problem in view of the closest prior art document D1 (comparative examples representing D1 are missing) which could be of relevance for establishing an argument of inventive step according to the problem solution approach of the Guidelines G-VII.5 ff in view thereof (D1).

4.3 The application documents originally filed does not seem to contain any additional technical feature (real operational features of the claimed process; or real compositon technical features of the claimed composition) which could once incorporated into the wordings of both independent claims 1 and 25 would be of help for overcoming at least one posed technical problem (cited in the application documents originally filed) which would not have been solved in an obvious way by the technical features of D1 taken alone.

4.4 Reference is made to the following documents; the numbering will be adhered to in the rest of the procedure.

4.5 The skilled person having knowledge of the above technical features (see documetns D2D4) is in a position to any starting feedstock without that any form of inventive step be involved therein. The advantages known from each of D2-D4 are well known and cannot

constitute the basis of an inventive step argument according to the problem solution approach of the Guidelines G-VII, 5 ff.

4.6 In the absence of at least one differentiating technical feature present in the wording of the independent claim 1 (claim 5 if the applicant decide to choose this second invention), which could be considered responsible for the solution in a non obvious way of technical problem posed in the application documents originally filed, in view of D1-D4 the inventive step of the claimed subject-matter cannot be acknowledged (Guidelines G-VII.5ff and Article 56 EPC).