Appeal 2007-1538
Application 10/396,244
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 4 through 7, 9 through 13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yeh. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer.
Claims 2, 3, and 14 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yeh in view of Kataoka. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on page 5 of the Answer.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yeh in view of Tsatsis. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 5 and 6 of
the Answer.
Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief, the Reply Brief
(filed June 14, 2006 and November 30, 2006 respectively), and the Answer (mailed
September 15, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
CONTENTIONS
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 through 7, 9
through 13, 18, and 19 based upon Yeh is in error. Appellant asserts that Yen does
not teach that the operation of the turbine is supplemented by action of the motor
thereon as claimed in claim 1. (Reply Br. 4).
Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and
14 through 17 based upon Yeh and Kataoka is in error. Appellant asserts that it
would not be obvious to combine the references as asserted by the Examiner. (Br.
10). Further, Appellant asserts “Kataoka is the opposite of the invention. Kataoka
requires a disconnect before the battery is connected to an auxiliary load, the
invention does not.” (Reply Br. 6.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013