Appeal No. 1997-0201
Application No. 08/140,318
arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Arguments which Appellant could have made but elected not to
make in the Brief have not been considered in this decision
(note 37 CFR § 1.192).
In making the obviousness rejection, the Examiner has
grouped all of the appealed claims together and asserts that
the combination of Komarek and De Vos would suggest to the
skilled artisan the obviousness of the claimed invention.
Although the Examiner included independent claim 4 in the
obviousness rejection based on the combination of Komarek and
De Vos, it is apparent from the statement of the grounds of
rejection (Answer, page 3 which references a previous Office
action, paper no. 7 mailed July 3, 1995) that the Examiner
considers Komarek alone to teach all of the claim 4
limitations.
In response, Appellant attacks the Examiner’s
characterization of the processing element array in Komarek as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007