Appeal No. 96-2722
Application 08/281,168
We find that the inverter of claims 13 to 25 and 36 to 53 is neither taught nor suggested by the
applied combination of applicants’ admitted prior art, Gray and Meyer, Bennett, Williams, and
Whatley.
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the subject matter recited in claims 1 to 12 and
26 to 35 and the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing rejections of claims
1 to 12 and 26 to 35. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 13 to 25 and 36 to 53
which recite the details of the inverter.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 12 and 26 to 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 13 to 25 and 36 to 53 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007