Appeal No. 1997-0211
Application No. 08/252,288
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Aug. 8, 1996) for the Examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed Jun. 24, 1996) for
the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
GROUP 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 1 (GROUP 1). (See brief at pages 14-20.) We
disagree with appellant. The Examiner has presented a case of obviousness of the claims
in Group 1, albeit brief and succinct. (See final rejection at pages iii-iv.) The Examiner’s
position is basically that Maddali teaches essentially the same basic power
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007