Ex Parte MAGERLEIN et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2001-1444                                                        
          Application No. 08/994,706                                                  


                    series with a resistor, said resistor having an                   
                    impedance approximately equal to a characteristic                 
                    impedance of said power distribution system at said               
                    discontinuities so as to absorb transient signals and             
                    prevent reflections thereof from said discontinuities.            
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Yamashita et al. (Yamashita)       5,396,198      Mar. 07, 1995             
          Yamamura et al. (Yamamura)         5,844,762      Dec. 01, 1998             
                                                  (filed Dec. 12, 1996)               
               Claims 18-20, 22, and 23, all of the appealed claims, stand            
          finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable             
          over each one of Yamashita and Yamamura.                                    
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the              
          Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and the Answer for the           
          respective details.                                                         
                                      OPINION                                         
               We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,                                                                     
          the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support           
          of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by            
          the Examiner as support for the rejection.  We have, likewise,              
          reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,            
          Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the                

               1 The Appeal Brief was filed October 6, 2000 (Paper No. 16).  In       
          response to the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 20, 2000 (Paper No. 17), a
          Reply Brief was filed January 25, 2001 (Paper No. 18), which was acknowledged
          and entered by the Examiner in the communication dated February 22, 2001    
          (Paper No. 20).                                                             
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007