Appeal No. 96-2950
Application 08/145,710
means provides a first current increasing rate in the
first state and said current providing means provides a
second current increasing rate in the second state,
said second current increasing rate being slower than
said first current increasing rate. [Emphasis added.]
Appellants argue on pages 7 and 8 of the brief that neither
Davis nor Kohda teaches the Appellants’ claimed limitations as
required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellants argue
that Davis does not disclose two different states as well as
provide a second current increasing rate that is slower than
the first current increasing rate. Appellants further argue that
although Kohda does disclose two different states, Kohda does not
disclose a second current increasing rate being slower than the
first current increasing rate.
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner argues that Davis
teaches a current increasing rate control means shown as elements
R2, 44 and P2 in Figure 1. However, the Examiner does not
respond to Appellants’ arguments that Davis does not teach two
different states or that the current increasing rate control
means provides a second current increasing rate that is slower
than the first current increasing rate.
Upon a careful review of Davis, we fail to find that Davis
teaches
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007