Appeal No. 2006-1280
Application No. 10/645,025
relates to preventing the feed cart 20 from tipping
over, whereas the completion of the chassis relates to
reinforcing the chassis such that the chassis has the
structural integrity necessary to withstand normal
driving conditions.
In response, the examiner states on page 5 of the
answer:
Weaver et al. teaches [sic, teach] “the battery
drawer/module (164) and the batteries contained therein
give the feed cart 20 a very favorable center of
gravity which allows the feed cart to be freely
maneuvered around the livestock feeding area without
significant danger of tipping over”, in column 9, lines
37-43. A cart chassis that is prone to tipping over
does not have “the structural integrity necessary to
withstand normal driving conditions.” In order for the
cart of Weaver to have “the structural integrity
necessary to withstand normal driving conditions” the
battery drawer/module must be in place to prevent the
cart from tipping over.
Initially we note that there is no disagreement
concerning Weaver’s teaching that centrally locating the
battery in the feed cart is to provide a favorable center of
gravity, rather the disagreement is as to whether this
teaching meets the limitations of claim 27. We disagree with
the examiner’s claim interpretation and determination that
having a favorable center of gravity provides the claimed
structural integrity. Independent claim 27, recites “whereby
the battery module completes the chassis upon insertion in
the battery module compartment thereby providing the chassis
the required structural integrity necessary to support the
electric powered vehicle during travel.” Implicit in this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007