Appeal No. 2000-1557
Application 08/384,456
that the conventional power control disclosed by appellants in
combination with the desire to reduce interference would have
suggested the invention of claims 20-22.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 20-22. We
agree with appellants that the examiner’s reliance on appellants’
own disclosure as providing prior art to support the rejection is
improper.
In summary, the examiner’s rejection of claims 50 and 52
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is sustained. The examiner’s rejection of
claims 14, 15 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is sustained. The
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 17-22 and 50 is
sustained with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 17-19 and 50 but
is not sustained with respect to claims 20-22. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-15, 17-22,
50 and 52 is affirmed-in-part.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007