Appeal No. 1997-0637
Application 08/265,965
The Examiner’s rejection relies on the following 3
reference:
Livay et al. al. (Livay) 5,359,568 Oct. 25,
1994
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Livay.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 4
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the Appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs.
It is our view that claims 1 to 20 are not anticipated by
Livay. Accordingly, we reverse.
3 The Examiner has also listed in the Examiner’s answer
Burrows, U.S. Patent 5,303,302 and Wirth, a publication
entitled “Algorithms+ ...”. However, they are not relied on
in the rejection on appeal. As such, they are not discussed
here.
4 A reply brief was filed on Jul. 8, 1996 and was entered
in the record on Aug. 5, 1996 without any further response by
the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007