Appeal No. 96-0548
Application 08/161,691
Moreover, although Claim 54 is not so limited, Iwanaga
suggests using the battery warning circuit for a hearing aid
because a hearing aid is a common battery operated implement.
Column 1, lines 5-11.
Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 54 is fully
disclosed (or at least suggested) by Iwanaga. The rejections
of Claims 54-58 will be sustained.
New Ground of Rejection
Claims 39-58 are hereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fletcher in view of Iwanaga. Fletcher
discloses a hearing aid malfunction detection system and
provides to the user an unspecified warning system 30. Thus,
to practice Fletcher, one skilled in the art must look to
another source for the specifics of a warning system.
Iwanaga provides a warning system for any battery
operated electric implement. Column 1, lines 5-11. Iwanaga’s
system provides an intermittent oscillation to a buzzer. The
buzzer sounds intermittently to warn the user of a low
battery, and the then sounds at lesser intervals when the
battery level becomes even more critically low. In other
words, the buzzer sounds more frequently. We find that this
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007