Appeal No. 97-0784
Application 08/174,648
Takahashi et al. (Takahashi) 4,930,122 May 29,
1990
Stamm et al. (Stamm) 5,404,483 April 4, 1995
(filed June 22, 1992)
Claims 9, 10, and 13-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Stamm and Takahashi.2
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7) and the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the Examiner's position and to the Appeal
Brief (Paper No. 11) (pages referred to as "Br__") for
Appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Disclosure
We do not find the limitation at issue about resending
the request only after ensuring that the conditions requiring
the operation are still valid in the body of the
specification, but it is found in originally filed claims 12
and 26. Support for the claim limitation should be added to
the body of the specification. See 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1).
Obviousness
The statement of the rejection in the Final Rejection2
and the Examiner's Answer erroneously lists claims 9, 10, 13,
and 15-25, leaving out claim 14.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007