Appeal No. 2003-1301
Application No. 09/782,539
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected to group claims 25,27, 28, 31
and 32 together as a first group and claims 26 and 30 as a second group.
From our review of the claimed invention, the teachings of Wagner and the
content of the examiner’s rejection and response to arguments, we find that the
examiner has set forth a prima facie case of anticipation of the claimed invention along
with a prima facie case of obviousness for independent claim 25. (See answer at
pages 2-4.)
The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art that the temperature of the power supply would provide information about the
power tool temperature. (See answer at page 3.) While we agree with the examiner’s
decision to reject independent claim 25, we need not reach a specific finding regarding
temperature since this limitation is found only in the dependent claims. Independent
claim 25 merely requires “a memory for storing use profile information about the tool,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007