Appeal No. 2001-1786
Application 08/420,796
connected to the data processor means, for converting digital
data signals from the data processor means into simulated storage
media signals to be provided to the storage unit and for
converting received signals from the storage unit into digital
data signals for processing by the data processor means.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Berwick et al. (Berwick) 4,504,871 Mar. 12, 1985
Hirokawa 4,672,182 June 09, 1987
Francini et al. (Francini) 4,701,601 Oct. 20, 1987
Sato et al. (Sato) 4,891,727 Jan. 02, 1990
(filed June 15, 1988)
Eisele 5,159,182 Oct. 27, 1992
Claims 28, 30-35 and 37-47 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-11 of Eisele. Claims 28, 30-35 and 37-47 also
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness
the examiner offers Hirokawa in view of Sato, Francini and
Berwick.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness and double patenting relied upon by the examiner
as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007