Appeal No. 97-0425
Application 08/330,335
Appellant makes the same arguments considered above.
Appellant also asserts that “the prior art references lead
away from the simplicity of the present invention and from the
low cost, low part count and high reliability which goes with
the low parts and the widely available primary components”
[brief, pages 29-30]. None of these considerations is
relevant to the invention as recited in the appealed claims.
The claim language does not preclude large and complex
devices. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 10.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-30 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
-16-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007