Appeal 2007-1944
Application 10/631,894
Examiner found. Instead, Ushiro argues that the Examiner failed to identify
any teaching or suggestion that would have motivated the placement of the
secondary cell or the fuel cell assembly as recited in the claims. Moreover,
Ushiro does not dispute the Examiner's findings as to the teachings of the
references or the propriety of their combination on any other basis, and we
deem all such arguments to have been waived.
Ushiro's arguments are without merit. First, Ushiro's complaint that
the Examiner did not mention Ohtani or Peterson in the body of the final
rejection (Br. at 10) is baseless. These references were cited by name and
patent number in the heading of the rejection and cited by patent number in
the body. (Final Rejection at 4; Answer at 5.) We find it difficult to credit
any of Ushiro's factual findings in the face of these erroneous
characterizations of the record. Substantively, Ushiro objects that neither
Ohtani nor Peterson teach the use of fuel cells (Br. at 10); but Ushiro does
not explain why this fact undermines the Examiner's position. Consideration
of the record shows that Ushiro's objection is unwarranted.
First, as shown by Ohtani and Peterson (and equally susceptible of
official notice), battery powered cameras with the batteries placed "at a side
of a lens" are well known. We note in passing that the limitation "at the side
of a lens" is not given any particular definition by Ushiro in its specification,
and hence is given the broadest reasonable meaning in light of the
specification. Second, as the Examiner found, both Prasad and Shioya are
concerned with fuel cell systems for portable electronic devices such as
those that have become commonplace in the last couple of decades. The
practical and technical demands for compact, light weight, conveniently
used telephones, personal data devices, cameras, and the like are undeniable
-16-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013