Appeal No. 96-1738
Application 08/040,428
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 16-20, 22-25, 36 and 37 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner relies upon Korpi alone.2
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
At the outset, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 37 on appeal since appellant has indicated at page 10 of
the brief that no arguments will be presented concerning the
patentability of this claim. On the other hand, we reverse
the rejection of all the remaining claims on appeal, generally
for the reasons expressed by the appellant in the brief and
reply brief.
The examiner admits that Korpi does not teach
implementing his control circuitry by using a programmable
array logic unit. Although we agree that there is a certain
reasonableness in the art to the examiner's position that it
At pages 2-4 of the Answer, the examiner has withdrawn a separate2
rejection of certain claims under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007