THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KARL M. GUTTAG,
CARRELL R. KILLEBREW, JR.
and JERRY R. VAN AKEN
____________
Appeal No. 1997-0400
Application No. 08/080,735
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RUGGIERO, HECKER, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 34, 37, 40
1
and 51 -54, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
1We note that claim 51 was originally presented on Dec. 10, 1992. The claim set forth that either
the look-up data or the majority bits were selected to be displayed. On June 22, 1993, “majority” was
amended to recite “minority” in the penultimate line without discussion thereof. This does not appear
correct in light of the embodiment in Figure 56 and discussion at page 97 of the specification.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007