Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
using Ida’s scheme of connecting its components, it would have
been obvious to expect Ida to connect these additional
(switching) components via its integrated conductor.
Appellants’ claims recite no structural barriers or particular
component placements which would limit the use of an
integrated conductor for all components connections. Thus we
find all limitations of claim 4 to be met by the combination
of Takaishi and Ida, and we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4. Likewise, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 5 , 11, 12, 14 and 23 which stand or fall with claim2
4.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 5, 11, 12, 14 and 20 through 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
2We note that “a second integrated conductor” is recited
in claim 5 without the recitation of a first integrated
conductor.
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007