Appeal No. 2005-1149
Application No. 09/855,235
For a thorough understanding of the respective viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning these
rejections, we refer to the brief and reply brief and to the
answer.
OPINION
We will sustain each of these rejections for the reasons
well stated by the examiner in her answer. We add the following
comments for emphasis.
There is no perceptible merit in the appellants’ argument
that Andrieu contains no teaching or suggestion of a diode
connected between the anode and cathode of an electrochemical
cell. As correctly explained by the examiner, figure 3 of
Andrieu unquestionably depicts a diode symbol connected between
the anode and cathode of patentee’s battery cells 32. Contrary
to the appellants’ apparent belief, this drawing disclosure is
not somehow negatived, and would not have been ignored by those
skilled in the art, simply because the corresponding narrative
disclosure in the paragraph bridging column 5 and 6 may
inappropriately characterize this diode with the parenthetical
expression “(not shown)” (column 5, line 66). Similarly,
patentee’s express teaching that “[t]hese diodes are Schottky
type diodes, for example” (column 6, lines 2-3) is not somehow
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007