Appeal 2007-1944
Application 10/631,894
35. Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
teachings of Prasad, Shioya, and Faris. (Answer at 9.)
36. Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
teachings of Prasad, Shioya, and Faris. (Answer at 10.)
37. The Examiner finds that Prasad teaches all of the elements of the
claimed subject matter but for the presence of a secondary cell and the fuel
cell being at the side of the lens of a camera, as required by claim 25, or in
the keyboard section of a portable telephone, as required by claims 26
and 27. (Answer at 4ff, citing Prasad at ¶¶ 20-36 and Figures 2, 3,
and 10-12.)
38. The Examiner also finds that Prasad does not teach placing a
secondary cell adjacent to the fuel cell. (Answer at 4ff.)
39. The Examiner finds that Shioya teaches a power supply system (a
battery clip) in which a secondary cell is charged by a fuel cell in order to
improve energy utilization. (Answer at 4, citing Shioya at 22:35–50 and
Figure 12.)
40. The Examiner finds that Ohtani Figure 4 and Peterson Figure 3
illustrate that placement of a power supply system in a camera at a side of a
lens is conventional. (Answer at 5; see also the Final Rejection, mailed 9
December 2005, at 4.)
41. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a secondary cell in combination with the fuel
cell systems disclosed by Prasad in order to gain the advantages taught by
Shioya; that the placement of the fuel cell system at a side of a lens would
have been obvious because it was known to be conventional in cameras, as
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013