Appeal No. 1997-3179
Application No. 08/244,286
No. 17, filed February 12, 1997) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
The obviousness rejection of claims 16 and 19-22 is
reversed.
Turning to the rejection of claims 16 and 19-22, the
examiner recognizes (Answer, page 4) that the difference
between the claimed invention and Weissner is:
Weissner presents (condensers) capacitor[s]
connected to ground which are essential to
eliminate high frequency from the incoming
signal, the claims presented eliminate the
capacitor component by closed ended language
"consisting," however, there is inherently
distributed capacitance present between the
conductors of the circuit
(electrodes/connections) and the tip and ring
line conductors as well as between the turns of
the coil(s).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007