Appeal No. 1997-1266
Application 08/078,791
Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Since the Examiner has supplied no such evidence or
demonstration of common knowledge as to the specific
frequencies claimed, we will not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 21, and likewise claims 5,
6, 11, 15, 18 through 20, 23 and 24, which stand or fall
together in group II.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed; however, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 5, 6, 11, 15, 18 through 21, 23 and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. 1
1We note that several of the claims, including claims for
which the rejection has been reversed, contain the language
“about” and “preferably about” which could be considered
ambiguous. Also, in claim 22, last paragraph, “The battery”
should be --the battery--, and claims should use the U.S.
spelling of such words as “energizing.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007