Appeal No. 96-3101
Application 08/020,570
being noted that the patentability of claims 2 through 12 and
14 through 30 have not been separately argued. See In re
Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and
In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA
1979).
With regard to claim 13, the examiner presents no reason
why it would have been obvious to employ varistors in the
addressing circuit of the European patent document. Such a
modification is not suggested by the prior art especially in
view of the fact that it would require a complete redesign of
the circuit in the European patent document. We therefore must
reverse the § 103 rejection of claim 13.
The examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed with respect to claims 1 through 12 and 14 through
30, but is reversed with respect to claim 13.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007