Appeal No. 1997-2216
Application No. 08/392,661
Upon consideration of the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, over Sears, of claims
7 and 9 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over Sears for
claims 7, 11, and 13, over Sears and Wakai for claims 9 and
10, and over Sears and Zocholl for claim 12 it is
ORDERED that the rejections are vacated.
B. Discussion
The examiner (Answer, page 4) reads "one or more pulses,
up to a predetermined finite maximum number of pulses, or for
a predetermined time," as recited in claim 1, as encompassing
"one pulse for a predetermined time," according to the
alternative language in the claim. The examiner then states
(Answer, page 4) that "the pulse [of Sears] has with it an
associated predetermined pulsing time provided by the RC
circuit 21 and 22 and the conduction of transistor 20." Also,
the examiner asserts (Supplemental Answer, page 2) that
"pulsing transistor 20 dictates the length of the pulse," and
concludes that "[t]his pulse length will be for a
predetermined length of time." However, the examiner seems
to be confusing "a predetermined time" with "a predetermined
period," though the claim language is clearly "time," not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007