Appeal No. 2001-2340
Application No. 09/141,707
Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 24 and 25 are rejected as obvious over
Cameron under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). These dependent claims are not
separately argued by appellants and we agree with the examiner’s
position in the answer that utilizing battery cells that are of
certain material, or rechargeable, would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 10-12 and 14-17
Claims 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected as unpatentable over
Cameron in view of Kuo or a flashlight under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As noted above, Cameron teaches a main battery cell having a
second charge-storage capacity that is greater than a first
charge-storage capacity in a sense battery cell. The only
difference between Cameron and claims 10-12, 15 and 17 is that
the claims require a housing for the batteries and Cameron is
silent with respect to a housing. However, Kuo or a flashlight
teaches a battery housing for holding batteries together in a
circuit configuration. It would have been obvious to couple
together Cameron’s cells in a housing for easy removal, as in a
flashlight, or to assemble the cells together as a unit for
compactness and ease of use, as in Kuo or a flashlight.
Dependent claim 14 merely recites that the main battery cell
is rechargeable and dependent claim 16 that the sense battery
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007