Appeal No. 96-3323
Application 08/022,922
view of Hardwick and further in view of Bly and Sasagase.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
appellant, we make reference to the brief, filed November 27, 1995, (Paper No. 17), the
reply brief, filed April 23, 1996, (Paper No. 19) and answer, mailed February 23, 1996,
(Paper No. 18) for the details thereto.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 1-10 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-10. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow with respect to the Examiner’s rejection.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gore in view of
5
Hardwick and further in view of Sasagase.
With respect to appellant's argument to Hardwick, appellant argues that the
"Examiner concedes . . ." certain elements of the claim language are not met by the
reference. (See brief at pages 10-11.) In particular, appellant argues that the assembly
structure database is “conceded” as not being taught by any of the references. (See brief
During the prosecution, claim 11 was presented in an amendment adding the “assembly5
structure database.” The Examiner added the Sasagase reference to reject this claim. The limitation of
claim 11 was added into the independent claims after the final rejection was made. Therefore, the
Examiner's answer contains the text of the rejection which we review.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007