Appeal No. 96-0656
Application 08/099,277
references. The Examiner has cited Dey for teaching this feature and cited to Col. 1, lines
37-40 of the reference. We do not find any teaching at this point in the Dey reference
concerning multiple reference voltages.
Appellant argues the combination of references and specifically that the Patino
reference discloses recharging of battery packs using a pocket and this is not directed to
the problem of mixing of batteries as is the claimed invention. (See brief at pages 4-5).
We agree. The Examiner has not provided adequate motivation for combining the
teachings of Patino with those of Dey and Hodgman ('144). Appellant further argues that
the references do not mention "simultaneously charging separate battery cells." (See brief
at page 4.) We agree, but note that the language of claim 7 does not explicitly require
"simultaneously" charging, therefore the argument is beyond the scope of the claim
language.
We find that the examiner has not met the burden of setting forth a prima facie case
of obviousness in rejecting claims 7-11. Our reviewing court has stated that obviousness
is tested by "what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Here, the prior art contains neither a teaching nor a
suggestion to include a polarity detector which controls the charging circuit and the use of
multiple reference voltages in the control of the charging circuitry as set forth in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007