Appeal 2006-2961
Application 09/745,390
Such internal generation of electric power within the keypad in Halperin
therefore fully meets a “self-powered” keypad as claimed.
We also find Appellants’ claim differentiation argument unavailing.
Merely because the claims lack a dependent claim that further limits “self-
powered” to solely battery operation hardly precludes this interpretation – an
interpretation that we find reasonable for the reasons previously indicated.
While claim 6 calls for additionally powering the self-powered information
entry part by at least one battery that is chargeable by the solar cell, such a
limitation hardly precludes a device being “self-powered” by another
battery.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 7-9, and 13 which fall with claim 1.
Representative Claim 15
Regarding representative claim 15, the Examiner notes that the prior
art does not disclose a solar cell, but cites Little as teaching integrating a
solar cell with a lithium thin film battery. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
generate the power (e.g., the sun, turning a crank, shaking the device, etc.) –
a fact Appellants readily acknowledge (Reply Br. 3). Similarly, self-
powered devices using batteries likewise depend on an “outside agency”
(i.e., the battery) for power generation. That batteries have a finite life is not
dispositive in determining whether a device using batteries is “self-powered”
as Appellants seem to suggest. Like battery-powered devices, other self-
powered devices (e.g., utilizing solar or mechanical power-generating
means) generate power with a finite duration and thus rely on an “outside
agency” to resume operation.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013