Appeal No. 96-0656
Application 08/099,277
in view of Hodgman ('144) and Patino.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
3 4
appellant, we make reference to the brief and answer for the details thereto.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 7-18 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 7-18. We reverse and make new grounds of rejection under
37 CFR § 1.196(b). In addition, we raise additional issues which appellant and the
examiner should consider in the event this subject matter is further prosecuted.
Turning to the rejection of claims 7-18, appellant argues that the combination of
Dey, Hodgman ('144) and Patino would not provide a charging system having the claimed
reference network, reverse polarity detector circuit and battery type discriminator circuit.
(See brief at page 6, paragraph 3.) We agree. Appellant further argues that none of the
systems relate to multiple batteries. (See brief at pages 5-6; page 6, paragraph 3.) We
disagree. Dey is directed to a single battery housing for an
3 Appellant filed an appeal brief, June 19, 1995, (Paper No. 12). We will refer to this appeal brief as
simply the brief. In response to the examiner 's answer, appellant filed a reply brief, September 18, 1995,
(Paper No. 14). We will refer to this reply brief as simply the reply.
4 The Examiner responded to the brief with an examiner's answer mailed August 15, 1995, (Paper
No. 13). We will refer to this examiner's answer as simply the answer. The Examiner responded to the
reply with an supplemental examiner's answer mailed November 2, 1995, (Paper No. 15). We will refer to
this supplemental examiner's answer as simply the supplemental answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007