Appeal No. 96-2190
Application 08/287,758
the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l,
Inc., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W. L. Gore &
Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1553, 220 USPQ at 312-
313.
Therefore, we conclude that the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the APA and Chalker is not
sustainable. The other two independent claims, 5 and 11,
contain the same limitation as claim 1, namely, a limitation
relating to the inputting means for storing the “required work
hours” within a “predetermined period which is greater than
one day;” [claim 5, lines 3 to 5; claim 11, lines 2 to 4].
For the same rationale used for claim 1, the rejection of
claims 5 and 11 is also not sustainable. Since the
corresponding dependent claims 2 through 4, 6 through 10, and
12 through 14 contain at least the same limitation as
discussed above, we will also reverse their rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the APA and Chalker.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007