Appeal No. 95-0692
Application 07/755,237
The following references are relied on by the examiner:2
Boudreau et al. (Boudreau) 4,654,788 Mar. 31, 1987
Eikill et al. (Eikill) 5,131,085 Jul. 14, 1992
(Filed Dec. 4, 1989)
Claims 1 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As 3
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Boudreau in
view of Eikill.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof. 4
2The other two references listed at the top of page 3 of
the answer have not been considered by us since, as noted by
the examiner, they have not been relied upon in any rejection
of any claim on appeal.
3The bottom of the first page of the examiner’s answer
indicates that the examiner has permitted entry of the
amendment filed with the brief.
4The outstanding objection to the drawings under 37 CFR
§ 1.83(a) is a petitionable rather than appealable matter. We
note in passing, however, that we disagree with the examiner’s
observation at page 8 of the answer that Fig. 3 does not
provide a means for avoiding conflict. The referenced
description in the paragraph bridging pages 12 and 13 of the
specification as filed does, in our view, convey the conflict
avoidance concept, but it appears that it may be more clearly
depicted in the Fig. 3 version by modifications to the various
arrows intercommunicating the priority logic units 91 and 92
to be more consistent with the verbal description just noted
at pages 12 and 13 of the specification.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007