Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
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.
OPINION
We reverse the four art rejections concerning this
appeal.
We do not agree with the examiner’s correlation of
features disclosed in Noreen under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
as applied by the examiner in the statement of the rejection
of the pending claims in the final rejection on which the
examiner relies. Our study of Noreen leads us to agree with
appellants’ general arguments made at pages 4 through 6 of the
brief that the examiner’s approach appears to correlate
certain features of the claims without regard as to
functionality or equivalence in Noreen.
More specifically, turning initially to the broadest
claim on appeal, claim 19, we are mindful of the examiner’s
reliance upon the subject matter recited in Noreen’s claim 11
at the end of column 16 of his patent that the so-called data-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007