Appeal No. 1996-1577
Application No. 08/215,205
see how this function is performed in Helmuth using the
control signals as defined by the examiner in the rejection.
Thus, we agree with appellant that the examiner has
ignored specific language of claim 1 in making the rejections.
Since the examiner has not properly considered the scope of
independent claim 1, he has failed to establish a prima facie
case of anticipation or obviousness. Therefore, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under
either
35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. Since all the dependent claims
depend from claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of
any of the dependent claims as well based on Helmuth alone.
Although the teachings of Niimi or Sievers are additionally
applied against claims 7, 8 and 11-13, neither Niimi nor
Sievers overcomes the basic deficiencies of Helmuth discussed
above. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of
these dependent claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In conclusion, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims. The decision of the
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007