Appeal 2007-0420
Application 10/643,383
appears to rely on Hooke solely for its teaching that conventional battery
packs were known to have a housing. The Examiner argues that (Answer, p.
4):
[i]n regard to the limitations calling for disposing the cells in a
housing, it would have been obvious to have placed the cells of
Alexandres . . . in a housing, the motivation being the teachings of
Hooke . . . that such is advantageous (see element 20 in figure 8 of
Hooke . . .).
According to the Examiner, Alexandres does not show a “weld area”
on at least one cell (Answer, pp. 3-4), i.e.,
[t]he claims differ from Alexandres . . . in calling for a cell with “a
weld area” (note that in the context of applicant’s invention, the term
“weld area” refers to an area of the cell previously welded during the
manufacture of the individual cell) and in calling for disposing the
cells in a housing. The patent to Alexandres . . . does not discuss the
details of cell 44.
Nevertheless, the Examiner submits that (Answer, p. 4)
[a]t the time applicant’s invention was made, it would have been
obvious to have practiced the method of Alexandres . . . on any
conventional battery cell.
Next, the Examiner finds that (Answer, p. 4):
[a]pplicant acknowledges that cells with pre-existing weld areas are
known (see elements 11, 11W in figures 1a, b, c and the discussion at
paragraph [0005] in applicant’s specification) . . . [;]
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that (Answer, p. 4)
[i]t would have been obvious to have practiced the method of
Alexandres . . . on a cell with a “weld area”, the well known nature of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013