Appeal No. 96-3944
Application 08/041,543
batteries would have made the substitution of the former for the
latter in Meinhold unobvious. While we recognize many of these
differences, we find no language in claim 1 indicative of
specific capacitor characteristics which are not also
characteristics of a battery. Therefore, we are in agreement
with the examiner that, at least with regard to the claimed
subject matter, the battery cells of Meinhold and the capacitors
of the instant invention would appear to have been
interchangeable in the sense that they are both electrical
storage devices which are rechargeable.
With regard to claim 4, appellant argues [page 9 of the
principal brief] that Meinhold does not disclose a "full charge
detecting circuit" or the performance of a logical operation on
the output signals from the charge-limiting circuit. We
disagree. Since Meinhold detects when a cell is charged to
"maximum capacity," this is clearly a disclosure of a "full
charge detecting circuit." Further, since the detection of such
maximum capacity, or full charge, results in a cut off of the
charging circuit to a particular cell or cells, i.e., the cell is
switched to be in or out of the circuit, this clearly is a
"logical operation," as broadly claimed.
Claim 6 falls with claim 4.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007