Appeal 2007-2203
Application 10/311,659
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Francisco. Because Appellant has not presented
any additional substantive arguments with respect to claims 29 and 30 (Br.
11), we also affirm the rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Francisco for the reasons stated in the Examiner’s
Answer.
II. REJECTIONS BASED ON KRABATSCH – Claims 28 & 31-36
Issue
Appellant asserts that Krabatsch’s cap is connected to an insert sleeve,
and is not connected to the battery cell cover. Br. 11. Appellant thus
contends that Krabatsch fails to disclose or suggest the claim limitation of a
battery cell cover and cap assembly wherein the cap is hingedly connected
directly to the battery cell cover. Br. 1. The Examiner contends that the
combination of Krabatsch’s insertion part and cell cover is properly
characterized as the claimed battery cell cover because the insertion part is
integrated with the cell cover. Answer 7. Thus, the issue for us to determine
is whether the claim language “battery cell cover” reads on Krabatch’s two-
part structure (i.e., insert and cover).
Relevant Findings Of Fact
7) Krabatsch discloses a plug for a lead acid battery cell having an
integral hinged cap and concentric tubular parts.
8) Figure 1 of Krabatsch is shown below:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013