Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
input word. Accordingly, the rejection is based on improper
hindsight.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Comins is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Comins and Mori is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Comins and Jarvis is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10, 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Comins is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007