Appeal No. 1996-3495
Application No. 08/321,941
modular enclosure in Eberwine’s system for the purpose stated
by the examiner on page 5 of the answer. Furthermore, even
assuming for the sake of argument that the size of Durborow’s
module were substituted for that of Eberwine’s module, there
is no teaching or suggestion in either reference that the
resulting size would be small enough to be considered as being
“miniaturized” to the extent that appellant’s module is
miniaturized when read in light of appellant’s specification.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007