Appeal No. 1997-3513
Application No. 08/263,700
Claims 18, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sato in view of Chaney and Rozmus. The
entire rationale for this rejection is set out in detail on
pages 3 through 7 of the examiner’s answer.
Claims 19 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sato in view of Chaney and Rozmus. For the
details of this rejection, reference is made to pages 7
through 9 of the examiner’s answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of this review, we have determined that the
applied prior art does not establish the prima facie
obviousness of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the
rejections of all claims on appeal are reversed. Our reasons
follow.
It is our finding that Sato discloses a sealed battery
pack with a stainless steel case. The electrolyte in Sato is
added through a cylindrical port 12. In Figures 2 through 6,
Sato discloses hermetically sealing the passageway 12 with a
spherical sealing member. Generally, Sato discloses two
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007