Appeal No. 2000-0538
Application 08/762,131
OPINION
After a careful review of the record before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 33 through 49 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Thus, we will not sustain the
rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth infra.
On page 8 of the Appellants’ brief, Appellants argue that
independent claims 33 and 48 provide that the battery pack of the
present invention can assume “a first position where said rear
side of the portable computer, provided with an electrical
connection, is covered with the battery pack.” Appellants argue
that the term “covered” is used by the Applicants to denote that
the electrical connections of the rear side of the battery pack
are not exposed. Appellants argue that the electrical
connections are concealed and thus protected. On page 10 of the
brief, Appellants quote the pertinent portion of claim 33 which
is as follows:
wherein said battery pack can assume a first position
where said rear side of the portable computer, provided
with an electric connection, is covered with the
battery pack and a second position where the rear side
of the portable computer is exposed without being
covered with the battery pack.
Appellants argue that Leung does not include this limitation.
Appellants argue that even assuming arguendo that Leung did show
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007