Appeal No. 96-3744 Page 10
Application No. 08/173,764
'256 is certainly capable of being programmed to perform any
desired functions.
We do not agree.
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 8-12)
that there is no reason or motivation in the applied prior art
for one of ordinary skill in this art to modify Trumbull '256
in the manner suggested by the examiner. It appears to us
that the examiner has resorted to speculation, unfounded
assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply the above-
noted deficiency in Trumbull '256. We have also reviewed
Trumbull '162 and Gwinnett but find nothing therein which
makes up for the deficiency of Trumbull '256 discussed above.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain any of the examiner's rejection
of appealed claims 1 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
New ground of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007