Appeal No. 95-0648
Application 08/001,199
control terminal G becomes zero or opposite in polarity. This is illustrated in appellants’ Fig. 10,
waveform (d), at time t .
3
In his answers, the examiner has not indicated how Mihara is applied against claim 13. In
the first office action (Paper No. 4), the examiner relied on the embodiments illustrated in Figs. 29
and 30 of Mihara. Because the examiner has not specifically indicated where in either of these
figures Mihara teaches means for deactivating a discharge switching element as defined in claim
13 and because no such means is apparent in the reference, we will not sustain the rejection to the
extent it relies on Mihara.
Because neither Okado nor Mihara teaches the “means for deactivating” of sole
independent claim 13, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established and the rejection
is not sustained. Whereas claims 14-19 and 21-23 depend from claim 13, the rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the admitted prior art, Okado and Mihara is not sustained.
The Rejection under Obviousness Type Double Patenting
over Claims 1-12 of Kumagai in View of Okado and Mihara
Whereas we have found that neither Okado nor Mihara teaches the last limitation of
independent claim 13, we will not sustain this rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007