Appeal No. 2001-2340
Application No. 09/141,707
indicator cell 60 that is coupled in parallel, not in series,
with a battery cell 50. Whereas independent claim 10 defines
serially coupled cells and Kuo in fact teaches cells coupled in
parallel, Kuo does not anticipate the subject matter of claims
10-12.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 8 and 9
These claims depend from claim 6. Accordingly, the
rejection of these claims will not be sustained for the same
reasons that the rejection of claim 6 will not be sustained.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends directly from claim 10. The examiner has
not addressed the question of why it would have been obvious to
couple Kuo’s cells serially, rather than in parallel as taught by
Kuo. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 14.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1-5, 15-25 and 33-38
We will not sustain the rejection of these claims based on
the rationale set forth by the examiner. It is considered that
the examiner has not set forth a bone fide motivation for
combining the teachings of the two references. In the paragraph
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007