Appeal No. 2006-1482
Application No. 10/619,890
the answer (pages 18 and 19), that Adams discloses verifying that
the firing capacitor has a capacitance above a first value and
below a second value. From all of the above, we are not
convinced of any error on the part of the examiner and find that
Adams anticipates claim 7. The rejection of claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. As claim 15 falls with claim 7, the
rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 have not been separately argued by
appellants that therefore fall with claims 7 and 12, from which
they depend. The rejection of claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 10(b) is affirmed.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007