Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed
invention. The examiner has, therefore, at least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
The burden is, therefore, upon appellant to come forward with
evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut the examiner's
prima facie case of obviousness. Appellant has presented
several arguments in response to the examiner’s rejections.
Therefore, we consider obviousness based upon the totality of
the evidence and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
2. The rejection of claims 1, 6 and
18-22 as unpatentable over Béjot and
Markuson.
These claims stand or fall together [brief, page 6].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the
examiner applies Béjot as a power monitoring device which
teaches all the features of claim 1 except for the trip
circuitry. The examiner cites Markuson to provide a teaching
of trip circuitry and presents reasons for combining the
teachings of Markuson with Béjot to arrive at the invention of
claim 1 [final rejection, pages 4-5]. Appellant argues that
there is no suggestion to combine the teachings of the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007