Appeal No. 2001-2019
Application No. 08/996,567 Page 19
firing voltage without activating the strobe. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
With regard to claim 13, which depends from claim 11, the
examiner presents reasoning (answer, page 6) as to why the
examiner considers claim 13 to be met by the prior art. Claim 13
contains language identical to claim 2. In view of our findings,
supra, with respect to claims 2 and 11, and the lack of any
arguments by appellants, we are not convinced of any error on the
part of the examiner. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007