Appeal No. 96-1539
Application No. 08/128,456
to anything in Albright which teaches this limitation, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Albright.
Since Binkley is relied on, in the rejection of claims 2
through 5 and 7 through 9, merely for the teaching of an
input/output queue and Binkley does not provide for the
deficiencies noted supra with regard to Albright, we also will
not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Albright in view of
Binkley.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and (e) and claims 2 through 5 and 7 through 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Michael R. Fleming ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Jameson Lee )
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007