Appeal No. 1998-0692
Application No. 08/693,551
will not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 7 through 9, 12
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Similarly, since the rejection of claims 5, 6, 10 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is based on the same speculation as to
Gregor’s suggestion of the claimed “maximum propagation
delay,” we also will not sustain the obviousness rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007