Appeal No. 95-3797
Application 07/975,764
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bentensky in view of Asano.
Rather than reiterate the entire arguments of the
examiner and the appellant in support of their respective
positions, reference is made to the appellant’s brief (Paper
No. 13) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 14) for the full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on issues raised in this
appeal we have carefully considered appellant’s specification,
the appealed claims, the applied references, and the
respective viewpoints advanced by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the rejection should not be sustained. Our
reasons for this determination follow.
We initially note that, for reasons stated infra. in
our, new rejections under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b),
we are of the opinion that claim 1 fails to satisfy the
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007