Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
provide power outputs. Appellants also contend that because Sagues recites a solid-state
switch to power an actuator, this does not necessarily provide a power output to a terminal.
We do not find appellants arguments in this regard to be persuasive. Sagues
clearly discloses a switch for powering an actuator. The actuator clearly enables
functioning of some output device. Thus, it appears to us that unless there is evidence to
the contrary of which we are unaware, Sagues does, indeed, provide power to some
output terminal. If not, no load at the output would be operable.
At the telephonic hearing of May 17, 2001, appellants’ representative was invited to
point to a specific claim limitation in claim 5 which distinguished over Sagues and/or to
dispute the examiner’s correspondence of elements at pages 7-8 of the answer but no
such indication or dispute was made. General allegations of the reference’s inapplicability
to the claimed subject matter do not suffice to overcome the prima facie case of
obviousness set forth by the examiner.
CONCLUSION
We have sustained the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we have not
sustained the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007