Appeal No. 1998-0662
Application No. 08/561,223
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to claims 2, 12 and 19, the Examiner admits
that Masumori does not disclose a common connection to enable
two adjacent rows, but indicates this is taught by Hanmura’s
row selector (6). (Answer-page 5.) We do not find such a
teaching in Hanmura. Even if there were such a teaching, we
find no motivation to incorporate such in Masumori. Thus we
agree with Appellants (brief-pages 5, 7 and 9), and will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection as to these claims.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, the Examiner has
presented no evidence of masking to effect a common connection
(answer-page 6). Thus, in addition to lacking support in the
rejection for a common connection (re: claims 2, 12 and 19),
the Examiner lacks support for achieving this common
connection via masking. Accordingly, as argued by Appellants
(brief-pages 5 and 8), we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection as to these claims.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007