Ex Parte Ker et al - Page 8

                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