Appeal 2006-2961
Application 09/745,390
invention to provide such a thin film solar cell in the prior art device – a
device that uses a lithium thin film battery (Answer 5).
Appellants argue that it is allegedly improper to combine Little with
Park and Halperin since (1) Park says nothing about how an information
entry part may be powered; (2) Little does not teach how to modify an
information entry part with respect to how it is powered; and (3) Halperin
teaches away from the combination since Halperin teaches a passively-
powered alternative that does not use a battery (Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 4-5).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 15.
Little discloses an integrated thin film solar cell 16 and battery 26 with
lithium anode deposited on a substrate. As Little indicates, such integrated
power generation and storage modules have several advantages including,
among other things, reducing size and weight (Little, col. 1, ll. 50-60; col. 3,
ll. 35-50; col. 4, ll. 6-47; Fig. 1). Significantly, Little teaches that such
devices can be used in radio transceivers (Little, col. 2, l. 50) –
communications devices that otherwise were unable to use photovoltaic cells
and separate storage devices (Little, col. 1, ll. 23-27).
In view of (1) the clear advantages of using solar cells (i.e., generating
electric power from sunlight) and integrating such solar cells with storage
devices for communications devices as suggested by Little, and (2) the fact
that Halperin uses a lithium thin film battery -- the same material used in
Little’s thin film battery -- we see no reason why the skilled artisan would
not have provided a integrated solar cell/battery device in lieu of the thin
film battery of Halperin. That Halperin may disclose a passively-powered
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013