Appeal No. 2001-2340
Application No. 09/141,707
comprises two electrical contacts and an electro-chemically
generated display connected therebetween. Cell 50 and indicator
60 are connected in parallel via the contacts.
Grouping of Claims
At pages 7 and 8 of the brief, appellants indicated there
are six groups of claims which stand or fall alone.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 1, 6 and 7
As to claim 1, appellants submit that, unlike the charge-
storage capacity of the claimed sense battery cell, the charge-
storage capacity of Cameron’s sense cell 22 is not less than the
charge-storage capacity of one of Cameron’s main cells 20. It is
urged that, based on the ordinary meanings of battery and battery
cell as in the technical dictionary titled “Dictionary of
Technical Terms” (Appendix B to the brief), one cannot interpret
main battery cell in claim 1 as a battery, and thus cannot
interpret main battery cell in claim 1 as reading on Cameron’s
battery 10.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, appellants argue that in
Figure 2, Cameron discloses a sense cell 22 that stores the same
charge as each main cell 20 before the cells 20 first discharge
through a system load 24. In contrast, attention is drawn to the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007