Appeal No. 1998-0925
Application No. 08/588,836
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin [IBM]; Vol. 36, No. 04;
Apr. 1993; pp 353-4.
The examiner also relies on admitted prior art of
appellants at page 9, lines 19-25 of the specification [APA1]
and at page 2, line 26 through page 3, line 8 of the
specification [APA2], as well as on remarks made by appellants
in Paper No. 6, Feb. 24, 1995 [APA3].
Claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
cites IBM with regard to claims 1 through 4, 6 and 11 through
15, adding APA1 with regard to claims 7 and 8. With regard to
claims 9 and 10, the examiner cites IBM in view of APA2 and
APA3. IBM in view of Aoki is cited with regard to claims 16
through 19, with APA1 added to this combination with regard to
claims 20 and 21.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6
and 11 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007