Appeal No. 96-0656
Application 08/099,277
U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958,
189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). Here, claims 12-18 do not define the metes and
bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
6
Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hodgman et al ('243) in
view of Hodgman et al.('144) and Dey.
The Hodgman ('243) patent discloses a battery charging system for charging
rechargeable batteries. Hodgman ('243) discloses a transformer for providing a reference
voltage V and providing the charging current. Hodgman ('243) teaches the use of a
cc
resistive network having plural resistors, 53, in a voltage divider to produce reference
voltages used in the processing within the charger circuitry. Hodgman ('243) disclose in
Figures 1 and 2 that the charging of separate same sized battery cells may be done
individually or with plural cells with the same charging circuit.
Hodgman ('243) does disclose a case, 15, for holding a single battery in Figure 1,
but does not explicitly disclose a battery receiving well adapted to receive the plurality of
6 A copy of Hodgman et al. ; US Patent 4,628,243 was cited by appellant in the information
disclosure statement filed on July 29, 1993. A copy of the reference is NOT ENCLOSED with this
decision.
We have rejected only claim 7 of the instant application in order to show the appellant and the
Examiner the breadth of the claimed invention. We do not give an opinion as to the novelty or
obviousness of the claimed invention beyond claim 7. We have not applied prior art against claims
12-18 due to the problems noted above with determining the scope of the claims. The examiner
should review the prior art and claims to make any further rejections as the Examiner deems appropriate.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007