Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659
the secondary cover 60 engages a recess or groove 16 in the top surface
of the primary cover 50. Col. 3, ll. 57-59. The secondary cover 60 is
also locked to the housing 80. Col. 3, ll. 49-52. “Because of the unique
securing arrangement of the secondary cover 60 to the primary cover 50
and the gas condensation chamber housing 80, the removal of the
secondary cover 60 is not possible without causing damage to either the
rims 2, 14 or the secondary cover 60.” Col. 4, ll. 12-17.
6) Secondary cover 60 includes a lid 22 which pivots on a crease
hinge 31. Col. 3, ll. 62-65. “Lid 22 permits access to the six plugs 26 in
the chamber housing 80, to check the electrolyte level in each battery
cell.” Col. 4, ll. 6-8. Lid 22 may be reclosed and held in a closed
position. Col. 4, ll. 1-2.
Analysis and Conclusions
During prosecution claims are given their broadest reasonable
construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The claims, as drafted,
broadly recite “a battery cell cover.” We are in agreement with the
Examiner that the plain meaning of the claim language reads on a cover
having a single, as well as a multi-piece construction. Moreover, as noted
by the Examiner, Francisco’s primary and secondary covers are securely
engaged so as to form a single cover structure. Finding of Fact 5. Appellant
has not explained why a narrower claim construction is warranted. Nor do
we find any basis in the Specification for limiting the battery cell cover to a
single piece construction. Thus, we are in agreement with the Examiner that
claim 28 reads on Francisco’s battery cover assembly.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013