Appeal No. 1998-0062
Application No. 08/252,896
but that the means does not provide the signal to the remainder of the switching circuits.
(See reply brief at page 7.) We agree with appellants. Moreover, appellants generally
disagree with the combination of the embodiments of Figures 1 and 2 applied by the
examiner and that this combination is not well founded with the various combinations and
modifications which the examiner has set forth. (See reply brief at pages 2-8.) We agree
with appellants.
Since the limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art, we will not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 15 and 19, and of
dependent claims 2-7, 10-14, 16 and 17.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-7, 10-17 and 19,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007