Appeal No. 1998-0456 Page 13
Application No. 08/454,706
We turn next to the rejection of claims 12 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Metroka,
Barthel, and Meinhold. This rejection is also reversed
because Meinhold does not make up for the deficiencies of the
basic combination of Metroka and Barthel with respect to the
claimed residual electricity-detecting circuit.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection of
claims 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997,
by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10,
1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct.
21, 1997)).
37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, “A new ground of rejection
shall not be considered final for purposes of judicial
review.”
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007