Appeal No. 96-2418
Application 08/137,267
position information;
selecting one of the first and second present position
candidacies, which calculated correction amount is the minimum;
and
updating the present position by the corrected advanced
position of the selected one candidacy.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Thoone et al. (Thoone) 4,758,959 Jul. 19, 1988
Honey et al. (Honey) 4,796,191 Jan. 3, 1989
Tenmoku et al. (Tenmoku) 4,807,127 Feb. 21, 1989
Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Honey. Claims 2, 3 and 8 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Honey and Tenmoku.
Claims 4 through 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Honey and Thoone.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on September 29, 1995. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellant
filed a reply appeal brief on April 4, 1996. We will refer to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner stated
in the Examiner’s letter dated April 26, 1996 that the reply
brief has been entered and considered but no further response by
the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007