Appeal No. 95-2855
Application 08/075,338
support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the examiner as support for the obviousness rejection.
We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, the appellant's arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure in this application does provide support
for the claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that
the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular
art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1-11.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-11 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. For purposes of this
rejection, the claims stand or fall together as a single group
[brief, page 6]. With respect to representative independent
claim 1, the rejection focuses on the “reading control means.”
According to the examiner, the original specification does not
provide support for the newly added limitation of the reading
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007