Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
rejection of claims 8 and 9 also requires Deffenbaugh.
Therefore, we will consider claims 8 and 10 separately for
patentability since they should not have been grouped together
based upon the examiner’s explanation.
Claim 8 adds a distortion-reducing impedance network
to the apparatus of claim 7. The examiner cites Deffenbaugh
to support his position that it would have been obvious to
provide such a network to the power monitoring device of
Béjot. It is the examiner’s position basically that reducing
distortion is an inherent property of the circuitry of each of
the applied references. Appellant argues that any distortion
reduction in the references individually does not suggest its
use in a power monitoring apparatus as recited in claim 8.
Our position on this point is basically the same as we
discussed above with respect to the absolute value circuitry.
Although the recitations of the distortion-reducing impedance
network are very broadly recited in claim 8, we agree with
appellant that the examiner’s rationale for combining the
teachings of the references is not supported by the record in
this case. There is no evidence on the record that a network
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007