Appeal No. 1997-1379
Application 08/194,748
considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art.").
Claim 19 is a very detailed claim and the Examiner makes
no effort to correlate the discussion of the references to the
claim limitations, e.g., by a claim chart or by quoting
relevant portions of the claim, or to account for all of the
claim limitations. While the correspondence of some
limitations to the references is clear without any specific
mention by the Examiner, e.g., the buffer means of claim 20
can only be met by Scourtes, many other limitations are not
accounted for in the combination. For example, the rejection
does not address the "first detector means" and "second
detector means" which cooperate with the "fourth light
emitting element," as claimed. Nor does the rejection address
where the references disclose or suggest the claimed "loading
request signal," "unloading request signal," "unloading OK
signal," and "loading OK signal." It is the Examiner's duty,
not ours in the first instance, to show that all of the claim
limitations have been addressed.
(2)
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007