Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025
With full consideration being given to the subject
matter on appeal, the examiner’s rejection and the arguments
of appellant and the examiner, for the reasons stated infra
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
25 through 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant asserts that independent claim 27 recites a
step of providing an electric powered vehicle with a chassis
and wherein the battery module completes the chassis when
the battery module is inserted into the chassis thereby
providing the required structural integrity to support the
vehicle during travel. See Brief p. 4. Appellant argues
that Weaver teaches a battery powered feed cart with a
battery drawer. The battery drawer is located within the
undercarriage but in no way discloses or suggests that the
battery drawer “is necessary to complete the undercarriage
22 and thus provide the undercarriage with required
structural integrity.” Instead, appellant asserts that
Weaver teaches the under carriage is fully formed and
capable of supporting the feed box. See brief p. 6.
Appellant further argues:
Weaver in column 9, lines 37-43, states that the
battery drawer 164 is centrally located within the
undercarriage 22 in order to provide the feed cart 20
with a favorable center of gravity. Appellant
respectfully contends that “center of gravity” in no
way discloses the completion of a chassis with required
structural integrity necessary to support an electric
powered vehicle during travel. “Center of gravity”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007