Appeal 2007-1052
Application 10/329,906
B. Claims 2 through 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 21, 22, and 23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lansberry.
C. Claims 1 through 7, 27, 28, and 32 through 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fang in view of Emmerich.
D. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fang in view of Emmerich and further in view of
Lansberry.
E. Claims 8 through 18, 20 through 26, 30, and 31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fang in view of
Emmerich and further in view of Ashley.
F. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fang in view of Emmerich, Ashley and further in view of
Lansberry.
Appellants contend2 that Lansberry does not anticipate claims 1, 5
through 8, 11, 13, 15 through 20, 24 through 31, 33, and 34. Particularly,
Appellants contend that Lansberry does not disclose a system that
continuously injects an AC current into the mains voltage supply, as set forth
in independent claims 1, 8, 18, and 27. (Br. 10.) Appellants further contend
that, as evidenced in column 2, lines 29-58 of the Lansberry reference, the
lengthy discussion of the technical barriers and safety issues serve as
disincentives for Lansberry to teach supplying energy back into a grid.
2 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We have
therefore not considered Appellants’ previously submitted arguments, which
are presently incorporated by reference in Appellants’ Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013