Appeal No. 1999-1993 Application No. 08/385,702 the teaching of equal and opposite voltage does not teach or suggest the invention as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 4-13. CONCLUSION To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 4-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED JERRY SMITH ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) JOSEPH L. DIXON ) Administrative Patent Judge ) jld/vsh 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007