Appeal No. 2005-2313 11
Application No. 10/052,695
We find nothing in Dietz requiring the ground argued by appellants. If appellants’ device
may be a hand-held device with its own internal power source, so too may Dietz’s device.
There is nothing within Dietz’s disclosure precluding such a device and there is nothing in
the instant claims requiring such a device. In view of Dietz’s Figure 4, showing no ground,
and nothing in the specification of Dietz to explain that there must be a ground, we find no
distinction between what is set forth in instant claim 34 and what is clearly suggested by
Dietz.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 30-35 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19, 20, and 22-36 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007