Appeal No. 1998-1795
Application No. 08/485,682
Regarding claim 9, we do not find the claimed relay K1 in
Riester. The addition of Resch does not cure this deficiency.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 9 over Riester and Resch.
In summary, we have sustained the anticipation rejection
of claims 1, 2, and 4 to 6 by Riester, while we have not
sustained the anticipation rejection of claims 3, 7 and 10 by
Riester. We have sustained the obviousness rejection of claim
8 over Riester and Resch, while we have not sustained the
obviousness rejection of claim 9 over Riester and Resch.
Finally, we also have not sustained the rejection of claims 7
to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007