Appeal No. 2006-0742 Page Reexamination Control No. 90/006,013 4 whereby the electronic circuit is at least periodically deactivated in the absence of the control signal. We make reference to appellants' Appeal Brief ("Brief," filed 24 September 2004) and Reply Brief3 ("Reply," filed 20 July 2005) and to the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed 15 July 2005). The examiner relies on the following references in his rejection. Iwasaki 4,618,804 21 October 1986 Corazzini 5,413,161 09 May 1995 II. Issues Claims 17, 18, 21, 27, 28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Corazzini in view of Iwasaki. Claim 48 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Corazzini.4 III. Grouping of claims Appellants have argued claims 21, 30 and 48 separately from rejected claims 17, 18, 27 and 28, which have been argued as a single group (Brief, pp. 7-10). Therefore, this appeal is decided on the basis of claims 17, 21, 30 and 48. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005). 3 Noted by the examiner without comment on 31 August 2005. 4 Appellants' brief incorrectly states that claim 48 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Corazzini in view of Iwasaki (see e.g., Brief, p. 4, the Final Office Action (mailed 14 September 2004), p. 7 and Answer, p. 8). The examiner's answer did not correct the error (Answer, p. 2, § (6)).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007