Ex Parte Ralea - Page 3



            Appeal 2007-1557                                                                                  
            Application 10/943,536                                                                            
                         capacitively stores electrical energy and provides the                               
                         stored electrical energy as the DC supply voltage in an                              
                         absence of the main supply source, the electrical energy                             
                         provided by the electrical energy back-up system used                                
                         for a commanded braking operation of the aircraft;                                   
                                wherein the supply of capacitively stored electrical                          
                         energy from the electrical energy back-up system is made                             
                         without switching between the electrical energy back-up                              
                         system and the main supply source.                                                   

                                            THE REJECTIONS                                                    
                   The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:                     
                    Fangio                    US 5,744,876                 Apr. 28, 1998                      
                    Corio                     US 6,296,325 B1                Oct. 2, 2001                     

                   The following rejections are before us for review:                                         
                1. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being                     
                   indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject          
                   matter which applicant regards as the invention.                                           
                2. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over                     
                   Corio in view of Fangio.                                                                   

                                                   ISSUE                                                      
                   The issues before us are whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner                     
            erred in rejecting (1) claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being                 
            indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter          

                                                      3                                                       



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013