Appeal No. 1998-0908
Application No. 08/506,292
of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 57, 58, 68-72, 75-80, and 83. We reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to the obviousness of the
invention set forth in claims 66, 67, 73, 74, 81, and 82.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
As to the issue of whether the four additions to the
specification in the amendment filed April 28, 1997 (Paper
No. 11) are new matter under 35 U.S.C. § 132, we find that the
first three additions (after line 12 on page 6, after line 11 on
page 12, and after line 7 on page 13) do not directly or
indirectly affect the claims before us. The issue of new matter
as to these three additions is therefore a petitionable issue
under 37 CFR § 1.181 and not an appropriate matter for decision
by the Board.
The fourth addition to the specification (after line 19 on
page 15) involving the use of voltage and current “limiting”
terminology as opposed to the original “blocking” language is, on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007