Appeal No. 1999-0602
Application 08/469,393
the input coil 11. Note the bottom of page 5 of the translation of this reference. Finally,
appellant’s comment at the bottom of page 6 of the reply brief that the secondary
references do not provide analog feedback with the simple circuitry that appellant claims is
misplaced. Appellant only claims broadly an analog feedback means providing various
functional features, which the secondary reference do teach and show.
In view of the foregoing, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection based upon
obviousness-type double patenting of claims 1-3, 6 and 8-14. We have also sustained the
rejection in the alternative of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
have also sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Therefore, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007