Appeal No. 96-2950
Application 08/145,710
Appellants respond on page 3 of the reply brief that
Appellants’ claim 1 recites “second current increasing rate being
slower than the first current increasing rate.” Appellants argue
that Appellants’ independent claim 1 recites that the current
increasing rate refers to the speed or rate of change of the
current and not the quantity of the current. We agree and find
that Appellants’ claim 1 requires that the rate of increasing
change of the second current is slower than the rate of
increasing change of the first current.
In the supplemental answer, the Examiner argues that Kohda
in lines 4-9 of column 8 suggests that current increasing rate
can be varied wherein one is slower than another one. Even if
this is true, the Examiner has made an anticipation rejection
which requires a showing of a teaching of the Appellants’
limitation. The question of whether one of ordinary skill in the
art would have reason to modify Kohda’s teaching is not a
question before us for our consideration.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007