Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
coupled as recited in claim 8 is either necessary or desirable
in the monitoring device of either Béjot, Lehrmann or
Markuson. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 8 and 9.
As noted above, claims 10-13 do not recite the
impedance network of claims 8 and 9 and do not require the
teachings of Deffenbaugh for support of the rejection. The
final rejection clearly points out how the teachings of Béjot,
Markuson and Lehrmann are applied to meet the recitations of
claims 10-13 [pages 9-10]. We are in agreement with the
examiner as to the manner in which the references suggest the
limitations in claims 10-13. Appellant argues that there is
no teaching of a terminal to electrically connect the
transformer to a device being powered. We are of the view
that the transformer in Lehrmann clearly has at least one
terminal connected to the load which is being powered.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 10-13. This is
not a new ground of rejection since we simply are not relying
on the teachings of Deffenbaugh to support the rejection of
these claims. The collective teachings of the references as
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007