Appeal No. 2000-0131
Application No. 08/800,972
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection groups all of the
appealed claims together and, as the basis for the obviousness
rejection, the Examiner proposes to modify the output signal
disable circuit disclosure of Fuller. According to the Examiner
(Answer, page 7), Fuller discloses all of the claim limitations
except for an explicit disclosure that the circuit power supply is
a battery. The Examiner nevertheless asserts the manifest
obviousness to the skilled artisan of using a battery as a circuit
power supply.
With respect to independent claim 16 (the representative claim
for Appellants’ suggested grouping including claims 16, 17, and
19), after reviewing the Examiner’s detailed analysis (Answer,
pages 5-7), it is our view that such analysis carefully points out
the teachings of the prior art Fuller reference, reasonably
indicates the perceived differences between this prior art and the
claimed invention, and provides reasons as to how and why the prior
art teachings would have been modified to arrive at the claimed
invention. In our opinion, the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007