Appeal No. 1997-0333
Application 08/521,162
answer should not refer, either directly or indirectly, to more than one prior Office action."). We further
note that the examiner improperly refers to paper number 7 in the Answer (see Answer, page 2), and
our review of the file indicates that the examiner apparently intended to reference paper number 6.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellant and the examiner, reference is made to the Brief
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied reference to Hayes, and the respective viewpoints of
appellant and the examiner found throughout the entire prosecution history. As a consequence of our
review, we are in general agreement with appellant (Brief, pages 7 to 9) that the claims on appeal
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in
light of the teachings and reasonable suggestions of the applied reference. Because we conclude that
the examiner has failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness, and for the reasons which
follow, we will not sustain the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 7) that Hayes does not teach a main control system as required
by representative claim 1. The examiner admits (see final rejection of parent application, paper number
20, page 1) that Hayes fails to teach a main control system, and asserts that it would have been obvious
to have one. We agree with appellant, and find that no main control system is taught or suggested by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007