Appeal No. 1998-2612
Application 08/478,289
With respect to independent claim 17, we also do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 17 for reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 13. We also agree with
appellant’s separate argument that the proposed modification of
the admitted prior art with the circuitry of Moog would still not
provide a fixed resistance between the common effect send and
receive terminals nor would elements 34 and 38 of Moog be
electrically coupled in parallel with the common effect send and
receive terminals as recited in claim 17.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007