Appeal 2007-1095
Application 09/944,171
which we find to teach and fairly suggest the invention as claimed. We note
that the language of dependent claim 5 does not specifically refer back to
“said first power line” and “said second power line” as recited in
independent claim 1. Rather, dependent claim 5 again introduces “a first
power line” and “a second power line.” While Appellants may have
intended the specific reference to the previously recited power lines, we
cannot import this limitation into the express language of the claim.
Therefore, we cannot find that the Examiner erred, and we will sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 5 and claims 6-12 grouped therewith by
Appellants (Br. 9).
With respect to dependent claim 12, Appellants indicate that the
Examiner has not indicated why it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art at the time of the invention to connect the gate in the claimed manner
(Br. 9). The Examiner further details the reason in the responsive arguments
at page 14 of the Answer and Appellants have not provided further
argument/comment. Therefore, we accept the Examiner further discussion
and sustain the rejection of dependent claim 12.
We note that Appellants seem to argue dependent claim 15 at page 9
of the Brief, but claim 15 is not included in the heading for the section and
had further been grouped with claims 13-17. Therefore, we have already
addressed this claim above.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013