Appeal No. 1998-1796
Application No. 08/408,154
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 2, the sole
independent claims on appeal, Appellant’s primary argument in
the Briefs centers on the contention that neither of the
Kamaike or Sun references discloses the claimed “...control
means for suppressing an amount of regenerative braking energy
supplied form said motor to said rechargeable battery by
controlling said motor...” under certain specified conditions,
i.e. excess voltage or charging current. After careful review
of the Kamaike and Sun references in light of the arguments of
record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s position as
stated in the Briefs.
Our interpretation of the disclosures of Kamaike and Sun
coincides with that of Appellant, i.e. no control of a vehicle
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007