Appeal No. 95-3678
Application 07/545,786
Appellant’s arguments regarding the proper interpretation
of the claims stand essentially unrebutted by the examiner, and
we find these unrebutted arguments to be logical, accurate and
persuasive. Thus, the invention of claims 1, 11, 13 and 14
should be construed in the manner argued by appellant. Such
claim construction has not been considered by the examiner on
this record. Since we are of the view that the subject matter of
amended claims 1, 11, 13 and 14, when properly interpreted, is
directed to an invention which has not been shown to be suggested
by the collective teachings of Sze, Shinoda and Kawashima, we
conclude that the examiner has failed to support his position
that this subject matter would have been obvious to the artisan
in view of the applied prior art. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 11, 13 and 14 as formulated by the
examiner.
We now consider the implicit rejection of claims 2-4, 7-
10 and 15 on the ground of Res Judicata. Claims 2-4 and 7-9
depend from claim 1 which was amended after the previous Board
decision. The amendment of claim 1 added limitations which were
not present in the claims considered by the Board in the previous
decision. Thus, claims 2-4 and 7-9 are directed to an invention
which was not considered by the Board in the previous decision.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007