Appeal No. 1997-2151
Application No. 08/221,959
of obviousness with secondary evidence. (See brief at pages 3-4.) Moreover, appellant
has merely addressed the individual references without
addressing the combination of the teachings. Appellant merely argues that “none of them
teach or suggest means to closely control the width of this blocking signal.” (See brief at
page 4.) We agree with the examiner and similarly, do not find a limitation in independent
claims 14, 28 or 35 expressly setting forth the “means to closely control the width of this
blocking signal.” Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 14, 28 and 35 and their
dependent claims.
With respect to claims 32 and 42 which the examiner indicated as allowable if
rewritten in independent form, we make no comment with regard to these claims since
these claims are not on appeal.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 28, 29, 33, 35, 38, 39
and 40 under 35 U.S.C. §102 is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to reject claims
14, 28-31 and 33-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007