Ex parte BAC V. PHAM - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-0587                                                         
          Application 08/385,253                                                       

          processing information read by the interactive element from                  
          the storage medium;                                                          

                         each component of the set of electronic                       
          components having an output and being coupled in a                           
          predetermined arrangement to other components of the set of                  
          electronic components to process the read information;                       
                         a data capture circuit including an input                     
          circuit and an output circuit;                                               
                         the input circuit coupled to the output of each               
          component of the set of electronic components;                               
                         the output circuit coupled to the input circuit               
          to capture a signal from a preselected one of the outputs                    
          coupled to the input circuit, and being adaptable to transfer                
          the captured signal to the processor.                                        
                                       Opinion                                         
               The rejection of claims 1-10, 12-23, 25, and 27-32 under                
          35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Squires cannot be                 
          sustained.  The rejection of claims 11, 24 and 26 under 35                   
          U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Squires and Abbott                   
          also cannot be sustained.                                                    
               A reversal of the rejection on appeal should not be                     
          construed as an affirmative indication that the appellant’s                  
          claims are patentable over prior art.  We address only the                   
          positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on                  
          which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is                    

                                          4                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007