Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 5
Application No. 09/139,309
stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Slepian, Hyatt, and U.S. Patent No.
2,295,379 ("Beck") and over Downing, Hyatt, and Beck.
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the following rejections:
• indefiniteness rejection of claims 5-20 and 30-32
• anticipation rejection of claims 5-10 and 31 over Kouchich
• obviousness rejection of claims 5-10 over Xu
• obviousness rejections of claims 11-16 over Slepian and Hyatt
• obviousness rejection of claims 11-20 over Downing and Hyatt
• obviousness rejections of claims 17-20 over Slepian, Hyatt, and Beck and
over Downing, Hyatt, and Beck
• obviousness rejections of claim 31 over Downing and Hyatt; over
Downing, Hyatt, and Beck; and over Slepian, Hyatt, and Beck.
Indefiniteness Rejection of Claims 5-20 and 30-32
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the five points of contention therebetween. First, the examiner had asserted,
"[t]he term 'less than about' in claims 6-20 and . . . 32 is a relative term which renders
the claim indefinite." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellants argue, "[t]he phrase . . .
can be understood from the specification without uncertainty to denote the parameters
which would achieve component protection from overvoltage transients through
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007