Appeal No. 1996-3083
Application 08/139,692
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof.2
OPINION
We reverse both stated rejections for the reasons
generally set forth by appellants in the brief.
The examiner's positions, however, are also flawed from
the outset. As to both rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
103, the examiner's basic approach in the final rejection, as
well as in the answer appears to be setting forth a concept-
type rejection. To the extent the examiner relies upon
inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 that branching is inherently
present in Brown's translation network, and the examiner's
additional position that Brown does not explicitly teach
branching in accordance with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103, this latter position under 35 U.S.C. § 103 essentially
admits the weakness in the position of inherency advocated
We note that appellants' reply brief filed on October 16, 1995 has2
not been entered by the examiner in accordance with the letter dated November
8, 1995. As such, we have note considered it in our deliberations.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007