Interference No. 103,036
Page 35 of the brief urges that Sterling "teaches the
need for a switch when a tester is attached to the terminals of a
battery."
Page 35 of the brief urges that the "nature of the
Kiernan et al. tester would require a switch in a multi-layer
device such as the switches disclosed in Kameda."
Page 42 of the brief urges that Sterling discloses a
voltage indicator, which has an electrical switch means on the
side of the battery.
Motion no. 6 is denied for essentially the reasons that
we set forth in our Final Decision (Paper No. 801) with respect
to the party Tucholski, wherein we denied its preliminary motions
(Paper Nos. 81 and 666) and for the reasons set forth in the
party Burroughs et al.’s opposition brief (Paper No. 763).
In the aforementioned final decision, we held that the
party Tucholski did not sustain its burden of proof to show that
the Burroughs et al.’s claims corresponding to the count are
unpatentable over Kiernan (WX 22), alone or in combination with
Sterling (WX 10). In so holding, we made several findings of
fact. On page 15 of the decision we found that the Kiernan
patent fails as an anticipation of the party Burroughs et al.’s
claims because the patent does not disclose either a battery
strength indicator attached to the side of a battery housing or
-11-
Page: Previous 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007