Appeal No. 96-4014
Application 08/192,939
Claims 7-16 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hisano in view of the admitted prior
art in the specification of a typical control scheme for a
turboshaft engine.
The examiner's statement of the rejection is contained in
the Final Rejection (Paper No. 21) and the Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 25). Appellants' position is set forth in the Brief
(Paper No. 24).
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellants divide the claims into three main groups:
(1) Group I - claims 7-13; (2) Group II - claims 14-16 and 18-19;
and (3) Group III - claim 20. Within each group appellants argue
some claims individually, i.e., claims 8, 12, and 13 in Group I
(Brief, pages 11-12) and claims 18 and 19 in Group II (Brief,
pages 17-18). These specifically mentioned claims cannot be said
to fall with the broadest claim in the group. The examiner does
not address claims 8, 12, 13, 18, and 19 in the Examiner's
Answer. However, since the claims are addressed in the Final
Rejection, we rely on the examiner's reasoning in the Final
Rejection and will not remand to have the claims considered.
Obviousness
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007