Appeal No. 96-3333
Application 08/295,194
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
3 4
appellants, we make reference to the briefs and answer for the details thereto.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 2, 6 and 7 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 6 and 7.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Turning to the rejection of claim 7, assuming arguendo that the examiner has made
a proper showing regarding the motivation to combine the teachings of Ito and Hattori, we
do not find all the claimed steps which are recited in the claim 7.
The Examiner recognizes appellants' argument concerning the lack of a teaching
concerning the independent operation of the system with respect to the prior art requiring
operator actuation which is altered by the operation of the system. (See answer at page
5, paragraph 4; brief at pages 5-7.) The Examiner states that the
3 Appellants filed an appeal brief, March 25, 1996, (Paper No. 11). We will refer to this appeal brief
as simply the brief. Appellants filed a reply brief on July 5, 1996, (Paper No. 13). We will refer to this reply
brief as simply the reply.
4 The Examiner responded to the brief with an examiner's answer mailed May 1, 1996, (Paper No.
30). We will refer to this examiner's answer as simply the answer. The Examiner mailed a letter on July
23, 1996, entering the reply and indicating that no further response by the examiner was deemed
necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007