Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
which might be peculiar to a particular art should . . . be
supported and the appellant similarly given the opportunity to
make a challenge.” In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 917, 214 USPQ
673, 677 (CCPA 1982). The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
1 through 3 and 6 is reversed because appellants correctly
argue (Brief, page 6) that the applied references do not teach
a power supply with a rectifier/filter and a regulator.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 5 is reversed
because the examiner never addressed the ground fault current
range recited therein.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3
and 5 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims
7 and 8, and is reversed as to claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007