Appeal No. 95-4636
Application 08/027,868
skill in the art as being usable for the data terminal.
Nonetheless, the rejection of the claims is without merit
because of the deficiencies relating to the FPGA aspect of the
invention.
In light of the foregoing deficiencies, it cannot be said
that the examiner has presented a prima facie case of
obviousness. Claim 6 is the only independent claim. All of
the other claims depend, either directly or indirectly from
claim 6. The references Aoki, Hilligoss, and Suzawa all have
been relied upon by the examiner only for meeting the
additional features recited in the respective dependent claims
and not for meeting the FPGA feature recited in independent
claim 6. Therefore, the other references do not make up for
the deficiencies of Butler.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 6-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in
various combinations with Crowdis, Aoki, Holligoss, and Suzawa
cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007