Interference No. 103,036
combination with Kiernan and Sterling render prima facie obvious
the Burroughs et al. claims 1 to 11, 13 to 16, 28 to 20, 22 to
37, 39 to 57 because the combined references fail to disclose or
suggest the use of any switch or the particular switch means
utilized by the party Burroughs et al.
Unpatentability of the Party Burroughs et al.'s
Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112--Issue (2)
The party Tucholski's brief urges that the senior party
Burroughs et al.'s claims corresponding to the count are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failure
of the Burroughs et al. specification to contain a written
description for the thermal insulation limitation of the claims.
Pages 97 and 98 of the opening brief break the claims
into the following categories.
A. Claims 33, 35 to 37, 39, 40 and 43 to 49 recite
sufficient thermal insulation means under one of its
surfaces to overcome heat sinking when the voltmeter
is in contact with a battery having an electrically
conducting housing
B. Claims 13 to 15 recite
a portion of a sealed chamber, cell or bubble below
one of its [the conductive layer's] surfaces
C. Claims 16 to 23 recite
sufficient non-conducting means under one of its [the
conductive layer's] surfaces to permit the heat
-33-
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007