Appeal No. 1999-0260
Application 08/571,064
card in response to the detection of an over-current condition in
separate power lines. The Examiner has failed to establish why
one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to turn
off the driver in response to the over-current detector by the
express teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by
implications contained in such teachings or suggestions.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 6,
7, 15 and 16. We also reverse the rejection of claims 8, 9, and
17, as claims 8 and 9 are dependent upon claim 7, and claim 17 is
dependent upon claim 16.
We now turn to claims 10-12. At the outset, we note that
Appellants have indicated on page 7, section VII, of the brief
that claims 10-12 form a single group, and the brief does not
include a statement that the claims of this group do not stand or
fall together. We further note that Appellants have argued all
the claims in this group together33 and have not explained why
the claims of this group are believed to be separately
patentable. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)(July 1, 1998) as amended at 62
Fed. Reg. 53196 (October 10, 1997), which was controlling at the
time of Appellants' filing the brief, states:
33 Brief, pages 14 and 15
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007