Ex Parte Tsatsis - Page 8

             Appeal 2007-1538                                                                                  
             Application 10/396,244                                                                            

             Further, Yeh teaches that the turbine and flywheel/motor/alternator unit can be used to           
             recharge a battery.  Fact 5.  As Yeh teaches that the alternator is constantly charging           
             the battery, that the flywheel/motor/alternator is one unit, and that the motor can be            
             used to operate the turbine, we find that Yeh teaches that the alternator is charging the         
             battery when the motor is supplementing the operation of the turbine.  Thus, we find              
             ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that Yeh discloses the invention of              
             claim 1.                                                                                          
                   37 C.F.R. § 41.37 sets forth the requirements for an Appeal Brief.  37 C.F.R.               
             § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) states:                                                                       
                   For each ground of rejection applying to two or more claims, the claims may be              
                   argued separately or as a group. When multiple claims subject to the same                   
                   ground of rejection are argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a              
                   single claim from the group of claims that are argued together to decide the                
                   appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the             
                   basis of the selected claim alone. Notwithstanding any other provision of this              
                   paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant              
                   has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board               
                   must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.                            

                   Appellant has not presented separate arguments directed to claims 4 through 7,              
             9 through 13, 18, and 19, which are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                
             being anticipated by Yeh.  Thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we              
             group claims 1, 4 through 7, 9 through 13, 18, and 19, and affirm the Examiner’s                  
             rejection of all of the claims so grouped.                                                        

                   Second Issue.                                                                               
                   Appellant argues, on page 10 of the Brief, that the combination of Yeh and                  
             Kataoka is not obvious and that the Examiner’s rejection is made in light of                      
             Appellant’s disclosed invention.  Further, on page 6 of the Reply Brief, Appellant                

                                                      8                                                        


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013