Ex parte DENEDIOS - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-3179                                                        
          Application No. 08/244,286                                                  


                    (19) A filter for suppressing                                     
                    longitudinally-conducted radio frequency                          
                    interference in voice frequency loops                             
                    consisting of:                                                    
                         a first inductor;                                            
                         a second inductor; and                                       
                         a transformer having a first winding and                     
                    a second winding; wherein said first                              
                    inductor and said first winding of said                           
                    transformer are coupled in series and said                        
                    second inductor and said second winding of                        
                    said transformer are coupled in series.                           
               The prior art relied upon by the examiner as evidence of               
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Weissner            2,144,950                Jan. 24, 1939                  
          Hale                     2,362,549                Nov. 14, 1944             
          Pontius             2,621,252                Dec.  9, 1952                  
          Hudson, Jr.         3,987,380                Oct. 19, 1976                  
          Kane                     4,614,925                Sep. 30, 1986             
               Claims 16 and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as being unpatentable over Weissner in view of Kane or Hale.                
               Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of                 
          the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints                   
          advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those                      
          rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper               
          No. 19, mailed March 31, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in              
          support of the rejections, and the appellant's brief (Paper                 
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007