Appeal No. 1997-0258
Application No. 08/251,052
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2-4
and 8-10.
Finally, we note that the Examiner’s final rejection
included claims 1 and 7 in the group of claims rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. While the Examiner, in the summary statement
on page 2 of the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated July 25,
1996, did not include claims 1 and 7 in the group of claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the obviousness rejection of
these claims has not been expressly withdrawn. To the extent
that the Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 1 and 7, this rejection is not sustained. For all of
the reasons discussed previously, there is no teaching of the
establishment of a DC current path to ground in the reset
circuitry of Hsieh as claimed, nor any convincing reasoning
supplied by the Examiner as to why it would be obvious to do
so. In conclusion, we have not
sustained any of the Examiner’s rejections of the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1-4, 7-10, and 12 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007