Appeal 2007-1538
Application 10/396,244
argues that Kataoka differs from the invention in that Kataoka requires a
disconnect before the battery is connected to the auxiliary load.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection, as they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim 2. Claim 2 is
dependent upon claim 1 and recites, “said electrical storage means comprises a
battery for providing an alternative source of electric power, including emergency
power for household operation in the event of an interruption in public utility
power.” The limitation directed to “household operation in the event of an
interruption in public utility power” is broad, as it is drawn to the use of the power
and not the structure of the apparatus. Nonetheless, neither claim 1 nor claim 2
recites limitations directed to switching of power, or the lack thereof. Thus, the
fact that Kataoka requires disconnecting the household electrical loads from the
public utility and connecting the loads to the vehicle battery has no bearing on
whether the reference teaches the claim limitation.
Further, Appellant’s argument that the combination of Yeh and Kataoka is
not obvious is similarly not convincing. Yeh teaches a vehicle which contains a
battery. Fact 5. Kataoka teaches that it was known to use a vehicle battery to
provide emergency power for household operation in the event of a power failure.
Fact 7. We consider the combination of these references to be nothing more than
the combination of known systems, which is obvious as it will provide the
predictable result of providing an emergency power source. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Appellant has not presented separate arguments directed to claims 3, and 14
through 17, which are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yeh and Kataoka. Thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013