Appeal No. 96-3944
Application 08/041,543
Rose merely teaches the use of a particular type of capacitor and
we hold that it would have been obvious, within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. 103, to have charged such capacitors, i.e., double layer,
in place of Meinhold's cells.
With regard to claim 14, appellant argues [page 11 of
the principal brief] that in addition to the cutoff of current,
each capacitor is provided with a bypass. Clearly, this is the
case with each cell in Meinhold as each fully charged cell is cut
out of the circuit.
With regard to claim 20, we think it is clear that
transistors were known switches and it would have been clearly
obvious to use transistors for switching to a bypass when full
charge has been reached.
All other claims fall with those specifically mentioned
since appellant's arguments in support thereof depend on the
previous arguments made regarding the specifically mentioned
claims.
The examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 9,
12, 14, 15, 17 and 19 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007