Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
read as claiming a single microcomputer as their “driving
signal generating means” under
35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 6. The Examiner’s answer does not
address this issue (therefore has not disputed this paragraph
6 interpretation). In accordance with the above reasoning,
and that we have found Karlin does not meet this limitation in
our review of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections supra, we will
not sustain the rejection of claim 14, and thereby the
rejection of 15 through 17, dependent therefrom.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 13, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; nor have we
sustained the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
102. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
-11-11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007