Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
There is no evidence that an absolute value detector requires
less components or cost than a regular detector with polarity
detectors added thereto. The examiner’s combination of
references basically takes the position that because absolute
value detectors were known, it would have been obvious to use
them anywhere. We are of the view that the record in this
case does not support that position. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 4.
5. The rejection of claims 8-13 as
unpatentable over Béjot, Markuson,
Lehrmann and Deffenbaugh.
These claims are indicated to stand or fall together
[brief, page 6]. Although the examiner listed these claims as
part of a single rejection, the final rejection makes it clear
that this was a mistake. The examiner only refers to
Deffenbaugh to support the rejection of claims 8 and 9. In
discussing the rejection of claims 10-13, the examiner
indicates that the features of these claims are taught by
Béjot, Markuson or Lehrmann. Thus, it is apparent from the
final rejection that the rejection of claims 10-13 requires
only the patents to Béjot, Markuson and Lehrmann, whereas the
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007