Appeal No. 1998-0941 Page 15
Application No. 08/226,660
In this case, the Examiner fails to address the obviousness
of the differences between patent claim 15 and the claimed
subject matter, in particular, controlling the deceleration so
that the next upstream bill is scanned by the scanning head.
Appellants have stated why the application claims are patentably
distinct from the patented subject matter (Brief, pages 12-15)
and these arguments should be addressed. I would further note
that the differences include limitations which are present in the
patent claims, but are not part of the application claims and,
therefore, the application claims are not technically covered by
the patent claims.
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007