Appeal No. 2000-2128
Application No. 09/077,102
of performing those functions. RCA Corp., supra. Contrary to
the examiner’s assertion, supra, we do not consider that
“servicing a rental transaction,” even if given its broadest
reasonable interpretation (In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), can be
considered to read on Bae’s disclosed system for exchanging a
battery, nor would Bae’s computer control of the battery
exchange system constitute the computerized control means
called for in claim 20, part [c], which, it should be noted,
is recited as being for “both vehicle renting and battery
servicing operations” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejection (2)
The examiner applies Guimarin as follows (final
rejection, page 5):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
Bae et al. with the teachings of Guimarin in order to
have precise and efficient computerized control of the
battery servicing operation and to protect the batteries
during transport. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use this combination to
service any electric vehicle such as battery powered
scooters.
However, whatever may be the merits of this conclusion of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007