Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
Shikata et al. (Shikata) 5,309,371 May 03,
1994
Claims 1 to 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Chao in view
of Shikata.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Generally for the reasons expressed by the examiner in
the answer, and for the additional reasons presented here, we
will sustain the prior art rejection of claims 1 to 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Inasmuch as no arguments are presented as to
any claim on appeal, and page 7 of the principal Brief on
appeal indicates that all claims stand or fall together, we
will consider only the features recited in representative
independent claim 1 on appeal.
We agree with the appellants’ and the examiner’s
assessment of Chao that this reference does not teach the
display and overlapping of the closed circuit object edges.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007