Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
applied by the examiner are still sufficient to sustain the
rejection of claims 10-13.
6. The rejection of claims 14-17 and
23 as unpatentable over Béjot,
Markuson, Lehrmann, Leyde and Garmong.
These claims stand or fall together [brief, page 6].
Appellant relies on the arguments made above with respect to
claim 7, and also argues that the trip circuitry of claims 16
and 17 is not suggested by Markuson. We have considered the
arguments with respect to claim 7 and the obviousness of trip
circuitry in our discussion above. In both cases we were
unpersuaded that the examiner had erred in finding obviousness
in these features. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 14-17 and 23.
7. The rejection of claim 24 as
unpatentable over Béjot, Markuson and
Lehrmann.
Claim 24 depends from claim 3, and appellant relies on
the patentability of claim 3 to support the patentability of
claim 24 [brief, page 26]. Since the rejection of claim 3 was
sustained above, we also sustain the rejection of claim 24.
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007