Appeal No. 96-2587
Application No. 08/035,750
substantially shortened. As explained by appellants, at page
42 of the principal brief, this limitation “distinguishes over
the conventional relocation table entries used by Hastings and
Van Dyke.” Appellants appear to be correct in their
assessment and we have no counter argument by the examiner.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 46, and of the claims
dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is reversed.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 10 through
15, 36 and 41 through 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and
rejecting claims 2 through 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23 through 25,
29 through 34, 37 through 40, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53 through 55
and 58 through 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007