Appeal No. 96-3304
Application 08/279,565
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 10) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of
the rejections and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 7) and
reply brief (Paper No. 11) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant’s claimed
subject matter as described in the specification, the appealed
claims, the prior art references applied by the examiner, and
the respective positions advanced by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
As a preliminary matter we base our understanding of the
appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation of
the terminology employed in the claims. In line 7 of claim
14, we interpret the “input” there recited to be the same
“input” recited in line 4 of claim 1 (See specification at
page 3, lines 21-24).
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-22
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007