Appeal No. 2006-0587
Application No. 10/017,483
We refer to the brief and to the answer respectively for a
thorough exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, this rejection cannot be
sustained.
The examiner’s exposition of his rejection inappropriately
fails to specifically identify the individual features recited in
appealed independent claim 1 which he regards as corresponding to
or differing from the fuel cell assembly of Keller. For example,
after describing aspects of Keller’s assembly (though without
identifying specific claim 1 requirements these aspects are
thought to satisfy), the examiner states that Keller does not
“expressly disclose . . . the specific load-resistor response.”
(Answer, page 6). Presumably, this “load-resistor response”
(id.) relates to some feature of the appellants’ claimed
invention, although the aforequoted phraseology is not recited in
any of the appealed claims.
Notwithstanding this lack of clarity on the examiner’s part,
the appeal record as a whole and the “Response to Argument”
section of the answer in particular reflect that the examiner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007