Appeal No. 96-3944
Application 08/041,543
would have been obvious to replace the battery cells with
capacitors as they are both known electrical storage devices.
With regard to claim 1, appellant asserts that the
difference between the claim and that taught by Meinhold is more
than that Meinhold is concerned with batteries while appellant is
concerned with capacitors.
More specifically, at page 6 of the principal brief,
appellant contends that
Meinhold does not disclose a charge-
limiting circuit that cuts off the
charging current when the detected
voltage has reached a referenced value
indicative of full charge. Meinhold,
rather, bypasses storage batteries when
the change [sic, charge] exceeds a
threshold voltage...
This argument is unpersuasive because if Meinhold bypasses the
storage batteries when a full charge, i.e., a threshold voltage,
is indicated, then this procedure results in a cut off of the
charging current to the battery.
Further down the same page, appellant appears to
recognize that Meinhold does, indeed, disclose a cut off circuit
but contends that "that circuit takes the batteries out of the
charging circuit when a negative discharge voltage is detected,"
this negative discharge voltage being, in actuality, a charging
voltage. Thus, contends appellant, "Meinhold takes the battery
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007