Ex parte RILEY - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-0023                                                           
          Application 07/958,046                                                       


          Control of Electric Power Grids", Elektrotechnische                          
          Zeitschrift, Vol. 109 no. 12 (June 1988), pp. 532-537 (English               
          Translation pp. 1-24)     (Knoop)                                            
          Thalimer, "Design of a Continuous Miner Motor Monitoring                     
          System", Conference Record of the IEEE Industry Applications                 
          Society Annual Meeting (Cat. No. 89CH2792-0)(1989), pp. 1576-                
          1579                                                                         
          (Thalimer)                                                                   
               In the final action, claims 1 through 5 stand rejected                  
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hitchens and                


          Thalimer.  On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner withdraws the               
          rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being               
          unpatentable over Hitchens and Thalimer.  The Examiner set                   
          forth a new ground of rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35               
          U.S.C.  § 103 as being unpatentable over Hitchens, Thalimer,                 
          Nigawara and Knoop .  Therefore, Claims 1 through 4 stand2                                                          
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                    
          Hitchens, Thalimer, Nigawara and Knoop and claim 5 stands                    
          rejected under 35 U.S.C.   § 103 as being unpatentable over                  
          Hitchens and Thalimer.                                                       


               The Appellant filed an amendment to claim 1 in response to the new2                                                                      
          ground of rejection.  The Examiner did not enter this amendment.  Therefore, 
          for the purpose of this appeal, this amended claim 1 is not before us for our
          consideration.                                                               
                                          3                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007