Appeal No. 2000-0706
Application No. 08/675,665
Again, we find no specific response to appellants' argument and request for an
explanation. Therefore, the examiner has not addressed appellants arguments, and we
must accept the undisputed analysis/evidence presented by appellants.
Additionally, appellants argue the Stevens circuit is already fully protected from
all load current extremes so there is no incentive to add the circuit protection of Tap to
Stevens. (See brief at page 11.) Again, the examiner does not respond to appellants'
arguments, and we accept the undisputed evidence.
Since appellants have rebutted the examiner's prima facie case and have
provided arguments which have not been addressed by the examiner, we find that the
examiner’s motivation to combine the teachings is flawed, and we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and 4-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1, 2 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007