Appeal No. 2001-2340
Application No. 09/141,707
fact that independent claim 6 defines a sense battery cell that
stores a second charge smaller than the first charge on a main
battery cell before the main battery cell first discharges
through a load.
We agree with appellants that the claimed main battery cell
is not met by Cameron’s battery 10 or any combination of cells
20. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1,
6 and 7 based on the rationale set forth by the examiner to the
effect that two or more cells 20 of Cameron form a main battery
cell. It is well-established that the meaning of a claim term
may be ascertained from dictionaries, encyclopedias and
treatises. In re Ripper, 171 F.2d 297, 299, 80 USPQ 96, 98 (CCPA
1948). It is also clear that the “Dictionary of Technical Terms”
supports appellants’ position that Cameron’s battery 10, or any
combination of cells 20, does not meet the claimed main battery
cell because a battery is not a cell, and because a plurality of
cells do not form a larger cell, but, instead, they form a
battery.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 10-12
We will not sustain this rejection. The examiner has not
responded to the appellants’ position that Kuo teaches an
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007