Appeal No. 1998-0711
Application 07/989,027
operating cycle and for an activation instruction or a
transfer instruction for controlling connections of the data
transfer through the closed loop or chain between the
amplififier[sic, amplifier] stages and control unit.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Hartford et al. (Hartford) 4,255,789 Mar. 10, 1981
Paredes et al. (Paredes) 4,347,563 Aug. 31, 1982
Kamal N. Majeed, “Dual Processor Automotive Controller,” IEEE,
1988, pages 39-44.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14 and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner
offers Hartford in view of Majeed and Paredes.1
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
1The final rejection relied on the teachings of Hartford
and Majeed only. Paredes was added to this combination in the
examiner’s answer as a new ground of rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007