Appeal No. 1997-0179
Application 08/251,054
Claims 1 to 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Fischer alone.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellant and the examiner, reference is made to the Briefs
and the Answers for the respective details thereof.3
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by appellant in the Briefs, and for the reasons which follow,
we will reverse the rejection of claims 1 to 8 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. As a consequence of
our review, we are in agreement with appellants that the claims on appeal meet the requirements of 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and that the claims are nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Fischer (see Brief, pages 5 to 6; Reply Brief, pages 3 to 4; and Supplemental Reply Brief, page 2).
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patent, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and
the examiner. We find that claims 1 to 8 adequately point out and particularly claim the subject matter
of the invention in as much as separate input, feedback, and mirroring circuits are defined in
We note that the after final amendment dated October 13, 1995, has been entered as per the Advisory3
Action of October 23, 1995.
Our review of the file wrapper in this case indicates that the Reply Brief of July 19, 1996, was entered and
considered by the examiner as indicated by the Supplemental Answer of August 7, 1996. And, the Supplemental
Reply Brief of October 15, 1996, has been entered and considered by the examiner as evidenced by the letter from the
examiner dated November 19, 1996.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007