Appeal No. 1998-3076
Application 08/303,046
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 41 is reversed
because we can not discern from the figures of Bilas whether
“planar sides of control and performance modules are abutting”
(brief, page 16).
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 53 through 56
and 2 through 15 is reversed because we agree with appellant’s
argument (reply brief, pages 3 and 4) that Bilas does not
connect the power source to the bus bars.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 57 through 60 1
is reversed because we agree with appellant’s argument (reply
brief, page 4) that Bilas does not have “ a power module
comprising a plurality of bus bars supported in a back plane
for connection to selected sources of power.”
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2 through
45 and 53 through 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed as
to claims 16 through 21, 33 through 35, 37 and 40, and is
reversed as to claims 2 through 15, 22 through 32, 36, 38, 39,
41 through 45 and 53 through 60. In summary, the decision of
the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
1In claim 57, the “node” lacks antecedent basis.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007