Appeal No. 2005-2724
Application No. 10/236,005
The Examiner rejected claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hershey and Jalan. We affirm for the
reasons presented by the Examiner.
Appellants argue that Hershey does not teach or suggest the use of
metal fuel cells as a power supply thus, there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Hershey and Jalan. (Brief, p. 14).
Appellants’ augment is not persuasive. As correctly recognized by the
Examiner, Answer, page 9, Jalan discloses several advantages for using a
metal fuel cell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that the advantages discussed in Jalan would have also been
achieved by using a metal fuel cell in the device of Hershey.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2 and 10-15
and claims 6-9. However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3
and 4.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007