Appeal No. 2005-0233
Application 10/085,138
phases in Holmquest would be detected as under voltage
conditions. This detection within Holmquest is sufficient to
meet the recitation of claim 17.
We now consider the rejection of claims 8-10 based on
Holmquest, Tran and Earle. We have considered the examiner’s
rejection, and find that the examiner has established a prima
facie case for the obviousness of the claimed invention.
Appellant has not specifically argued the limitations of these
claims for patentability. In fact, appellant’s brief indicates
that these claims stand or fall with claim 1. Since the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness, and since
appellant has made no arguments in rebuttal, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-18 is affirmed.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007