Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,127
existed at the output terminals. Such an unnecessary
modification would only have been made to reach the limitations
of appellant’s claimed invention, and not for any other reason.
Appellant correctly argues (Reply Brief, page 5) that “the
Examiner can only be relying on Applicant’s teaching to achieve
the claimed subject matter of the invention.”
In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 2, 9, 14 through 18 and 20 through 24 is reversed. The
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 through 8, 10 through 13
and 19 is likewise reversed because the teachings of Burgin,
Miyazawa, Schneider, Hosaka, Donze and Wright do not cure the
shortcomings in the teachings of Petkovsek, Heavey and Jackson.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007