Ex parte MUIRHEAD - Page 2

          Appeal No. 96-0750                                                          
          Application 07/944,561                                                      

          This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134                      
          from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7, 10-15 and                
          18-23.  Claims 8 and 16 have been cancelled.  The final rejec-              
          tion indicated that claims 9, 17, 24 and 25 were allowed.  An               
          amendment after the final rejection was filed on July 25, 1994              
          and was entered by the examiner.  In response to the appeal                 
          brief, the examiner indicated that claims 11-15, 18, 19 and 23              
          were allowed [answer, page 1].  The examiner’s answer changed               
          the rejection of the claims by dropping one of the applied                  
          references.  Appellants filed an amendment concurrently with a              
          reply brief in response to the new ground of rejection in the               
          answer.  In response to this amendment and the reply brief,                 
          the examiner indicated that claims 3-7, 10 and 22 were allowed              
          [supplemental answer, page 1].  Consequently, only claims 1,                
          2, 20 and 21 remain rejected in this application and form the               
          basis of this appeal.                                                       
          The claimed invention pertains to a method and appara-                      
          tus for indicating the presence or absence of non-periodic RF               
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.  A pulse signal level detector for detection of non-                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007