Appeal No. 2001-2340
Application No. 09/141,707
bridging pages 6 and 7, the answer merely quotes specific
portions of the Cameron and Kuo disclosures without explaining
how they suggest the claimed subject matter. This is inadequate
on its face. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 28 USPQ2d
1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 CFR 1.196(b)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 18-23 and 33-38
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 18-23 and 33-38 are rejected as
anticipated by Cameron under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 18-20, 23 and 33, at column 2,
lines 58-61, Cameron, which is commonly assigned with appellants’
application, teaches that output 16 provides information
regarding the remaining capacity of main battery 10. Thus,
according to Cameron, the term “capacity” generally relates to
the amount of charge in main battery 10, and each of cells 20, at
any given instant, and not to the maximum storage capacity of a
battery or cell. Similarly, the term “capacity” is not limited
to the maximum charge-storage capacity of the main battery in
appellants’ disclosure. Appellants use the term “capacity” to
refer to the amount of charge in a cell or battery at a given
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007