Appeal 2007-1944
Application 10/631,894
shown by Ohtani and Peterson; and that the placement of the secondary cell
adjacent to the fuel cell in a portable device would have been a matter of
design choice and rearrangement of known parts involving only routine skill.
(Answer at 5 (claim 25), at 6 (claims 26, 27), at 7 (claim 28), and at 8–9
(claims 51, 52, and 55-57).)
42. Ushiro finds that Ohtani and Peterson are not directed to power
supplies utilizing a fuel cell and complains that fuel cells "are not even
mentioned in the body of the rejection." (Br. at 10.)
43. Otherwise, Ushiro does not contest the Examiner's findings about the
disclosures of the references.
44. Ushiro disagrees with the Examiner's conclusions as to all one of
ordinary skill would have drawn from the references.
45. In particular, Ushiro argues that there is no teaching or suggestion to
place the secondary cell adjacent to the fuel cell (Br. at 9 (claim 25); at 11
(claims 26, 27); and at 12–13 (claims 28, 51, 52, and 55–57).)
46. Ushiro argues that the Examiner's reliance on a theory of "design
choice" is flawed because, absent "particular findings" regarding reasons for
the recited placement, an evidentiary basis for the rejection is inadequate.
(Br. at 9–10.)
47. Thus, according to Ushiro, all the Examiner's rejections should be
reversed. (Br. at 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.)
48. Additionally, Ushiro argues that neither Prasad nor Shioya teaches or
suggests placing the fuel cell system at a side of the lens of a camera. (Br.
at 8.) Ushiro concludes that the Examiner's rejection of claim 25 should be
reversed for that reason as well. (Id.)
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013