Ex Parte Blankenagel - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2003-2126                                                        
          Application No. 10/150,318                                                  


               It is undisputed that the Melcher apparatus includes a                 
          battery having a temperature sensor connected thereto.  The point           
          of contention on this appeal is whether patentee’s apparatus                
          includes a component which heats the temperature sensor as                  
          required by the appealed claims.                                            
               According to the examiner, Melcher’s resistor 25 (e.g., see            
          figure 3 and the disclosure relating thereto) would necessarily             
          and inherently produce heat to thereby heat the temperature                 
          sensor.  In support of his contrary view, the appellant points              
          out that patentee’s resistor 25 is disclosed as a low resistance            
          shunt resistor and argues that “[c]urrent through such a low                
          resistance shunt resistor would not affect the temperature                  
          sensor” (brief, page 8).  This argument is not well taken.                  
               As correctly indicated by the examiner (e.g., see page 6 of            
          the answer), the here claimed component, like component 25 in               
          Melcher, comprises a resistor (e.g., see appealed claims 5 and 6)           
          and is disclosed as comprising any component having a non-zero              
          resistance (e.g., see lines 1-2 on specification page 10).  Thus,           
          the fact that patentee’s component 25 comprises a low resistance            
          shunt resistor does not militate against the examiner’s                     
          anticipation finding as argued by the appellant.  Instead, this             
          finding is supported by the appellant’s aforementioned disclosure           

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007