Appeal No. 96-0548
Application 08/161,691
is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
recited increase in “frequency.”
It would have been obvious to select Iwanaga’s warning
system as the warning system 30 in Fletcher to permit the user
to recognize the reduction of the capacity of the battery and
the extent of the remaining capacity. Iwanaga, column 8,
lines 12-17.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 54 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Iwanaga is sustained. The rejection of
Claims 55, 56, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Iwanaga as applied to Claims 54 and 57, further in view
of Dublirer, is sustained.
The rejection of Claims 39-41, 47, 49, 54, and 57 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maas in view of DeCola or
Ibsen, is not sustained. The rejection of Claims 39-44, 46-
51, 53-55, 57, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Fletcher in view of DeCola or Ibsen, is not sustained.
The rejection of Claims 42, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53, 55, 56, and 58
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maas in view of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007